Trident

David Chaytor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of Trident.

John Reid: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert).

Def-expo 06

Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the extent was of the UK's contribution to Def-expo 06 in New Delhi; and if he will make a statement.

Adam Ingram: The United Kingdom provided a substantial contribution to Def Expo India 2006, held in New Delhi. My noble Friend, the Minister for Defence Procurement, led the UK official delegation, and over 30 UK companies were represented. The Defence Export Services Organisation's Export Support Team demonstrated a range of equipment, and Royal Air Force personnel briefed visitors on the capabilities of the EH101 helicopter. DESO officials participated in a Defence Industry seminar held in parallel to the exhibition.

Departmental Finance

Mark Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the Spring Supplementary Estimates 2005–06, if he will break down the revised Request for Resources 1 Department Expenditure Limit provision by subhead in (a) near cash and (b) non cash terms.

Adam Ingram: The revised RfRl Department Expenditure Limit provision by sub head in near cash and non cash terms, pursuant to the Spring Supplementary Estimates 2005–06 is set out in table 1 as follows:
	
		Table 1—Composition of defence expenditure limit in near cash and non cash terms by TLB at spring supplementary estimates 2005–06 £000
		
			 TLB Near cash Non cash 
		
		
			 Commander-in-Chief Fleet 1,446,919 2,117,160 
			 General Officer Commanding (Northern Ireland) 458,393 145,939 
			 Commander-in-Chief of Land Command 4,228,202 1,388,896 
			 Commander-in-Chief Strike Command 1,986,853 2,076,233 
			 Chief of Joint Operations 379,867 168,675 
			 Chief of Defence Logistics 5,564,560 3,540,882 
			 2nd Sea Lord/Commander-in-Chief Naval Home Command 682,671 82,765 
			 Adjutant General (Personnel and Training Command) 1,593,112 354,412 
			 Commander-in-Chief Personnel and Training Command 780,328 101,415 
			 Central 2,057,039 585,555 
			 Defence Estates 1,131,042 203,209 
			 Defence Procurement Agency 6,352,683 766,697 
			 Corporate Science and Technology 507,452 (4,146) 
			 Total 27,169,121 11,527,692

Departmental Staff

Vincent Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were employed by his Department in each of the last 12 months for which data is available; and how many and what percentage of posts were vacant in each region in each month.

Don Touhig: The number of civilian personnel employed by the Ministry of Defence over the last 12 months for which data is available are listed in the following table:
	
		Headcount
		
			  Civil servants(1) Locally engaged civilians Total 
		
		
			 2005
			 February 95,210 15,130 110,340 
			 March 95,150 15,130 110,290 
			 April 94,820 15,660 110,480 
			 May 94,640 15,660 110,300 
			 June 94,330 15,660 109,990 
			 July 94,040 15,680 109,720 
			 August 94,140 15,680 109,820 
			 September 93,640 15,680 109,320 
			 October 92,950 15,410 108,360 
			 November 92,810 15,410 108,220 
			 December 92,710 15,410 108,120 
			 
			 2006
			 January(2) 92,150 16,150 108,300 
		
	
	(1) This includes all permanent and casual civilians, Trading Funds and Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) staff.
	(2) The increase in civilian personnel between 1 December 2005 and 1 January 2006 is caused by an increase of 740 in the number of locally engaged civilian personnel, which is updated quarterly, (between 1 October 2005 and 1 January 2006 the number of locally engaged civilian personnel rose from 15,410 to 16,150), offset by a reduction of 560 in the remainder of the Department, Trading Funds and RFA staff.
	Details of the number of civilian Ministry of Defence posts vacant in each region in each month is not available, as this information is not held centrally by the MOD, and obtaining the data would incur disproportionate costs.

Departmental Staff

Michael Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any (a) employee of his Department, (b) person engaged by his Department as a consultant and (c) paid adviser to his Department is a member of the House of Lords; and if he will make a statement.

Don Touhig: Specific data on whether any persons employed by the Ministry of Defence or engaged by the MOD as a consultant or paid advisor are members of the House of Lords is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Gulf War Syndrome

Nadine Dorries: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what criteria claims by former members of the armed services in relation to Gulf war syndrome are assessed; and if he will make a statement.

Don Touhig: All war pension claims from former members of the armed services (including those regarding the umbrella term Gulf war syndrome) are assessed as set out in legislation. That is
	"by making a comparison between the condition of the member as so disabled and the condition of a normal healthy person of the same age and sex, without taking into account the earning capacity of the member in his disabled condition in his own or any other specific trade or occupation, and without taking into account the effect of any individual factors or extraneous circumstances."
	Assessments of less than 20 per cent. normally result in a tax-free lump sum award and assessments of 20 per cent. or more result in a pension.

Helicopters

Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the replacement of the AugustaWestland A109 Hirundos.

Adam Ingram: We are planning to replace the Agusta Westland A109s that the United Kingdom has in service once they reach their out of service date.

Low-flying Aircraft

Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been paid in compensation to farmers for livestock losses caused by low-flying military aircraft in (a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales in each year since 1994.

Don Touhig: The information is not held in the format requested, but the value of compensation paid (inclusive of legal costs) in relation to livestock losses caused by low-flying military aircraft in England, Scotland and Wales for each financial year since 1994 is as follows:
	
		
			  £ 
			  Amount paid 
		
		
			 1993–94 337,569 
			 1994–95 259,814 
			 1995–96 261,328 
			 1996–97 169,092 
			 1997–98 169,867 
			 1998–99 401,326 
			 1999–2000 220,112 
			 2000–01 491,663 
			 2001–02 272,334 
			 2002–03 236,453 
			 2003–04 330,082 
			 2004–05 407,813

Peacekeeping

Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of peacekeeping by United Kingdom forces for each peacekeeping operation in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement.

Adam Ingram: The costs of operations are calculated on a net additional basis and audited figures are published each year in the Ministry of Defence's Annual Report and Accounts. Costs of peacekeeping operations for Financial Years 1997–98 to 2004–05 were:
	
		Military operations—Costs 2002–05 £ million (current prices)
		
			  Resource DEL outturn Capital DEL outturn Total outturn 
		
		
			 Total peacekeeping costs 2004–05 890 174 1,064 
			 of which:
			 Balkans (Bosnia/Kosovo) 85 2 87 
			 Afghanistan 58 9 67 
			 Iraq 747 163 910 
			 
			 Total peacekeeping costs 2003–04 1,193 269 1,462 
			 of which:
			 Balkans (Bosnia/Kosovo) 104 (7)-1 103 
			 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1 0 1 
			 Afghanistan 36 10 46 
			 Iraq 1,051 260 1,311 
			 Sierra Leone 1 0 1 
			 EUFYROM 1 0 1 
			 Total peacekeeping costs 2002–03 1,071 319 1,390 
			 of which:
			 Kosovo 87 18 105 
			 Bosnia 79 2 81 
			 Gulf 39 6 45 
			 Afghanistan 236 75 311 
			 Iraq 630 218 848 
		
	
	(7) Adjustment from previous year.
	
		Military operations—Costs (prior to resource accounting) £ million
		
			  Total outturn 
		
		
			 Total peacekeeping costs 2001–02 557 
			 of which:  
			 Kosovo 142 
			 Bosnia 93 
			 Gulf 61 
			 Sierra Leone 40 
			 Afghanistan 221 
			   
			 Total peacekeeping costs 2000–01 382 
			 of which:  
			 Kosovo 220 
			 Bosnia 120 
			 Gulf(8) 25 
			 Sierra Leone 17 
			   
			 Total peacekeeping costs 1999–2000 451 
			 of which:  
			 Kosovo 325 
			 Bosnia 108 
			 Gulf(8) 28 
			   
			 Total peacekeeping costs 1998–99 196 
			 of which:  
			 Kosovo 14 
			 Bosnia 147 
			 Gulf(8) 35 
			   
			 Total peacekeeping costs 1997–98 402 
			 of which:  
			 Bosnia 386 
			 Gulf(8) 16 
		
	
	(8) RFR1 cost.
	The following estimated costs for operations in 2005–06 were included in Spring Supplementary Estimates published in February:
	
		
			  £ 
			  Amount 
		
		
			 Afghanistan 220,497,000 
			 Iraq 1,098,036,000 
			 Balkans 64,000,000 
		
	
	Final figures will be published in the MOD's Annual Report and Accounts for 2005–06 following audit by the National Audit Office.

Pension Liabilities

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the net present value of accrued pension liabilities in respect of (a) present and (b) former employees of his Department and its predecessors.

Don Touhig: This reply deals separately with the accrued pension liabilities for military personnel and civilian staff employed by the Ministry of Defence.
	Military pension liabilities are covered by the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS). This is a salary-related, contracted out, occupational pension scheme open to most members of the armed forces. The Armed Forces Pension Scheme Resource Accounts for 2004–05 showed that the total pension liability at 31 March 2005 was £66.5 billion. The value of pension liabilities was assessed as follows:
	
		
			  £ billion 
			  Amount 
		
		
			 Active members (past service) 20.7 
			 Deferred pensions 5.3 
			 Pensions in payment 40.5 
		
	
	Most civilian pension liabilities are covered by the Principal Civil Service Pension scheme. This is an unfunded multi-employer defined benefit scheme and individual departments' pension liabilities are not available. The Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation Resource Accounts for 2004–05 showed that the total pension liability at 31 March 2005 was £84.1 billion. The value of the pension liabilities was assessed as follows:
	
		
			  £ billion 
			  Amount 
		
		
			 Liabilities for current members still contributing to the scheme 37 
			 Deferred pensions and contingent pensions for dependants for members no longer contributing 12.7 
			 Current pensions for members and contingent pensions for dependants 34.4 
		
	
	As a result of a change in the discount rate used for calculating pension liabilities with effect from 1 April 2005, the total pension liability at 1 April 2005 increased by £10.6 billion to £94.7 billion.
	There is a relatively small pension liability for MOD civilian employees who are in the Teachers' Pension Scheme or the NHS Pension Scheme. These are unfunded defined schemes but, again, the MOD is unable to identify its share of the underlying assets and liabilities. Details of the assets and liabilities can be found in the respective resource accounts of the schemes; these are published and copies are available in the Library.

Type 45 Destroyer

Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the forecast cost at Main Gate was of the Type 45 destroyer programme, broken down by (a) indirect resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL), (b) direct resource DEL and (c) capital DEL.

Adam Ingram: The forecast cost at Main Gate of the Type 45 programme broken down into indirect resource expenditure (I-RDEL), direct resource expenditure (R-DEL) and capital expenditure (CDEL) is as follows:
	
		
			  £ million 
			  Amount 
		
		
			 R-DEL 0.0 
			 I-RDEL 500 
			 CDEL 4,975 
			 Total 5,475 
		
	
	At the time of Main Gate approval there was no distinction between direct resource expenditure and capital expenditure. The figures for Main Gate approval are in accordance with those which have been reported in Major Projects Report 2004 onwards, which were adjusted in agreement with the National Audit Office to take into account the Treasury change to the rate of interest on capital from 6 per cent. to 3.5 per cent., effective from 1 April 2003.

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

Greg Hands: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact on the efficient working of Government of the absence of a Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Tony Blair: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House (Mr. Hoon) gave to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 2 February 2006, Official Report, column 467.

Milk Prices

Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Prime Minister if he will host a meeting in Downing street between Shropshire dairy farmers and the chief executives of Tesco, Asda and Sainsburys to discuss the price paid by those supermarkets for the milk they buy.

Tony Blair: I have no current plans to do so. However, my noble Friend Lord Bach, the Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food, has had a number of meetings with dairy farmers and those who represent their interests. He also chairs the Dairy Supply Chain Forum at which both farmers and retailers are represented, and which meets regularly to discuss dairy issues.

Advertising

Oliver Heald: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 
	(1)  if he will list the advertising campaigns undertaken by his Department in each year since 1997–98;
	(2)  pursuant to the answer of 6 February 2006, Official Report, column 849W, on Government communications, what the (a) initial budget and (b) final expenditure was for each advertising campaign that his Department has undertaken in each year since 1997–98.

Jim Murphy: For details of recruitment advertising undertaken by the Department, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) on recruitment advertising on 14 February 2006, Official Report, columns 1914–15W.
	The Cabinet Office has devolved responsibility for occasional small-scale advertising in support of policies to management units. Records are not held centrally for this activity and to provide that information would result in disproportionate costs.
	Details of significant campaigns placed through the Central Office of Information with spend are shown in the table. To provide details of individual management units initial budgets that are not held centrally would result in disproportionate cost.
	
		
			  Campaign Spend (£) 
		
		
			 1999–2000 Millennium Bug—Public Awareness 4,303,551 
			 2000–01 Chartermark 34,996 
			 2001–02 UK-Online 2,491,500 
			 2001–02 Foot and Mouth—Teletext 48,263 
			 2002–03 UK-Online "Get Started" 1,000,000 
			 2004–05 Preparing for Emergencies (10)2,000,000 
			 2004–05 Direct Government advertising 306, 471 
		
	
	(10) This was the Cabinet Office contribution to a cross government campaign.

Departmental Expenditure

Oliver Heald: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much was spent on (a) the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit, (b) the Strategy Unit, (c) the Office of Public Service Reform, (d) the e-Government Unit, (e) the Policy Hub and (f) UK Gov Talk in each year since 1996–97 or the date of establishment; and what the estimated expenditure for 2005–06 is.

Jim Murphy: Resource expenditure for the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit (PMDU), the Strategy Unit (SU), the Office of Public Service Reform (OPSR), the e-Government Unit (EGU) and UK Gov Talk in each year since their establishment and the estimated expenditure for 2005–06 are shown in the table.
	The Prime Minister's Delivery Unit was set up in 2001; the Strategy Unit was set up in 2002 and the Office of Public Service Reform was set up in 2001 (and disbanded in January 2006). The EGU was formed in May 2004; the former Office of the e-Envoy had different functions and responsibilities, and its costs have not been included. The UK Policy Hub was set up in 2002 as part of a wider information technology Knowledge Management Project and its costs are not identified separately year-by-year. However, its cost from inception to January 2004 was £207,000 excluding VAT. Since 1 February 2004, the site has been located on the Cabinet Office server with the associated costs absorbed within general Cabinet Office IT costs.
	
		
			  £000 
			  Net expenditure figures 
			  PMDU SU OPSR EGU UK Gov Talk 
		
		
			 2001–02 955 n/a n/a n/a 179 
			 2002–03 3,106 7,110 5,704 n/a 46 
			 2003–04 3,581 4,676 3,496 n/a 66 
			 2004–05 3,675 4,174 2,149 28,473 52 
			 2005–06(11) 5,211 3,405 1,071 16,943 25 
		
	
	(11) Estimated spend shown for 2005–06 is based on expenditure incurred up and including January plus an estimate of expenditure for February and March 2006.
	Note:
	Figures shown are for total resource spend less any income.

Government Communications

Oliver Heald: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster pursuant to the answer of 2 February 2006, Official Report, columns 666–67W, on Government communications, how much of the running costs of the Central Office of Information were accounted for by (a) staff costs, (b) office costs and (c) other costs; and how much the Central Office of Information spent on (i) consultants, (ii) contractors, (ii) agencies and (iv) other external service providers in each year.

Jim Murphy: Running costs for the Central Office of Information in each year since 1996–97 are shown in the following table.
	
		
			 £000 
			  Staff costs Office costs Other costs Total costs 
		
		
			 1996–97 20,062 3,907 1,915 25,884 
			 1997–98 9,850 3,330 1,996 15,176 
			 1998–99 11,053 2,783 2,128 15,964 
			 1999–2000 12,558 2,658 2,721 17,937 
			 2000–01 13,316 3,482 3,991 20,789 
			 2001–02 17,078 2,931 3,470 23,479 
			 2002–03 19,646 2,966 2,893 25,505 
			 2003–04 17,514 2,637 2,756 22,907 
			 2004–05 19,779 3,288 2,781 25,848 
		
	
	Consultants costs, as included in other costs in the table, were:
	
		
			  Costs 
		
		
			 1996–97 (12)— 
			 1997–98 66,395 
			 1998–99 30,972 
			 1999–2000 17,468 
			 2000–01 48,980 
			 2001–02 52,170 
			 2002–03 18,886 
			 2003–04 259,580 
			 2004–05 153,788 
		
	
	(12) Not separately coded and is, therefore, unavailable.
	All of the services that resulted in other costs, as shown in the table, were provided by external service providers. A breakdown between contractors, agencies and others could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Alternative Livelihoods Programme

Mark Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will publish the alternative livelihoods programme for (a) the success criteria, (b) the budget for each of the next five years and (c) the expected duration in Afghanistan.

Hilary Benn: Afghanistan is the only country where DFID has a bilateral alternative livelihoods programme (i.e. alternatives to drug crop production). The Afghan Government launched its updated National Drug Control Strategy at the London Conference in January which sets out the Afghan Governments policies and plans for tackling Afghanistan's narcotics trade for the coming three years and highlights four key priorities. These are (i) targeting the trafficker and trade, (ii) strengthening and diversifying legal livelihoods, (iii) developing effective counter-narcotics institutions and (iv) demand reduction. The UK has a three year plan to support this and DFID leads on UK support for alternative livelihoods.
	Between 2003–04 and 2005–06 DFID's spending on alternative livelihoods in Afghanistan has increased ten fold. The forecast spend for this year is in the region of £45 million and we hope to maintain similar levels of funding in future years. The DFID livelihoods programme will support the Afghan Government's efforts to mitigate the impact of those who have lost their livelihoods, through the expansion of key Afghan Government National Programmes into priority poppy growing provinces; support programmes to improve farm and off-farm opportunities for poor Afghan farmers and labourers to access legal income from sustainable legal employment, credit productive assets such as infrastructure and social assets such as education and health services, and markets for legal goods; help generate an improved policy and planning environment for alternative livelihood programmes; and support greater financial and technical support from other donors, delivered in a more coherent manner in line with the Afghan Government's policies and plans.
	The success criterion for alternative livelihoods is a 10 per cent. year-on-year increase in uptake of legal livelihood opportunities. However success is highly dependant on progress with other strands of the National Drug Control Strategy, in particular improving the capacity of counter-narcotics institutions, law enforcement capacity and success in targeting the trafficker and trade.
	The experience from other countries shows that achieving sustainable reductions in drug cultivation takes a long-time. There are no quick solutions. We will continue to support the development of alternative livelihoods as long as there is a need to do so to help the Afghan Government achieve its counter-narcotics objectives.

Criminality

David Simpson: To ask the Solicitor-General what his definition is of criminality.

Mike O'Brien: The term "criminality" refers to conduct that is in breach of the criminal law.

Departmental Energy Costs

Theresa Villiers: To ask the Solicitor-General how much was spent by the Law Officers' Department on (a) gas and (b) electricity in 2004–05.

Mike O'Brien: In the financial year 2004–05 the Law Officers' Departments 1 spent the amounts on gas and electricity shown in the following table.
	1 Include the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office which was not set up until 18 April 2005.
	2 CPS will also have paid for some gas and electricity costs by way of service charges to landlords, but these figures are not separately available.
	
		
			   £ 
			 Department Gas Electricity 
		
		
			 Crown Prosecution Service(14) 206,643 1,117,059 
			 Serious Fraud Office 16,500 83,649 
			 Treasury Solicitor's Department 39,822 57,841 
			 HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate 2,417 6,408 
			 Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers 4,979 11,040

Departmental Expenditure

Theresa Villiers: To ask the Solicitor-General how much was spent by the Law Offices on refreshments in each year since 1997.

Mike O'Brien: The Crown Prosecution Service does not hold details centrally of how much it spends on refreshments and would incur disproportionate cost to obtain the information. The Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office was not in being in 2004–05 being set up on 18 April 2005.
	The Serious Fraud Office, Treasury Solicitor's Department (including the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers) and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate incurred the expenditure on refreshments in the following table.
	
		
			£ 
			 Financial year Serious Fraud Office Treasury Solicitor's Department(13) HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate 
		
		
			 1997–98 7,881 (14)— (15)— 
			 1998–99 6,261 3,237 (15)— 
			 1999–2000 6,703 4,200 (15)— 
			 2000–01 6,036 5,254 (15)— 
			 2001–02 10,439 5,985 1,597 
			 2002–03 9,777 8,131 4,129 
			 2003–04 9,644 8,310 3,261 
			 2004–05 12,081 (16)20,837 3,275 
		
	
	(13) Figures include expenditure by the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers.
	(14) Information is no longer available for 1997–98 and could be recovered only at disproportionate cost.
	(15) HMCPSI was established on 1 October 2000 and separately accounted for from 1 April 2001.
	(16) TSol has explained this by the installation of coffee making machines for staff (£5,000) and changes in the role of the GLS Secretariat occasioning increased refreshment costs for GLS events.
	The figures cover working breakfasts and lunches and refreshments at meetings in addition to official entertainment. All expenditure on official entertainment is made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on principles set out in "Government Accounting".

Departmental Expenditure

Theresa Villiers: To ask the Solicitor-General how many (a) laptops and (b) mobile phones the Law Officers' Department bought in each year since 1997; and what the cost of each category of equipment was in each year.

Mike O'Brien: The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and HMCPS Inspectorate do not purchase laptops or mobile phones. These are rented respectively from LogicaCMG and Damovo under Public Finance Initiative contracts. CPS entered into the LogicaCMG contract at the end of 2001, which by the end of each financial year in question provided the laptops shown in the following table:
	
		
			 Financial year Standard laptop Lightweight laptop 
		
		
			 2001–02 88 0 
			 2002–03 466 10 
			 2003–04 726 172 
			 2004–05 677 283 
		
	
	At 2006 rates, the monthly service charge per laptop under the LogicaCMG contract is:
	
		
			  Monthly service charge per laptop (£) 
		
		
			 Standard laptop 63.13 
			 Lightweight laptop 87.11 
		
	
	CPS does not hold central records on the use of laptops prior to the LogicaCMG contract.
	CPS does not hold information on mobile phones prior to 1998–99 but the number of phones in circulation during a financial year is given in the following table. The mobile phone contract does not identify cost of phones but covers both rental and call charges.
	
		
			  Financial year Number of phones in circulation throughout the year 
		
		
			 1998–99 131 
			 1999–2000 223 
			 2000–01 280 
			 2001–02 346 
			 2002–03 428 
			 2003–04 494 
			 2004–05 589 
		
	
	The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has purchased the laptops and mobile phones shown in the following table. SFO does not hold records of purchases in individual years prior to 1999–2000; nor of the cost of the separate purchase of laptops or mobile phones and to extract this information would incur disproportionate cost.
	
		
			  Financial year Number of laptop additions(17) Number of mobile phone additions 
		
		
			 Pre 1999 22 15 
			 1999–2000 8 5 
			 2000–01 3 17 
			 2001–02 76 7 
			 2002–03 90 1 
			 2003–04 175 5 
			 2004–05 31 8 
			 2005–06 57 23 
		
	
	(17) Represents additions to stock but others will have been disposed off over time as they became obsolete etc does not identify cost of phones but covers both rental and call charges.
	The Treasury Solicitor's Department has purchased new each year the laptops and mobile phones shown in the following table. Costs are provided for new laptops since 1998- 99. Information on the costs of new mobile phones each year and laptops before 1998–99 is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
	
		
			 Financial year Number of new laptops Cost (£) Number of new mobiles 
		
		
			 1997–98 (18)— (18)— 11 
			 1998–99 (18)— (18)— 12 
			 1999–2000 5 4,177 17 
			 2000–01 — — 20 
			 2001–02 6 5,110 20 
			 2002–03 23 31,764 26 
			 2003–04 47 80,667 22 
			 2004–05 26 28,446 30 
			 2005–06 15 28,830 18 
		
	
	The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers has purchased the laptops shown in the following table. Records are not available prior to 1999–2000.
	
		
			 Financial year Number of laptops Cost (£) 
		
		
			 1999–2000 2 3,770 
			 2000–01 0 — 
			 2001–02 2 4,023 
			 2002–03 4 6,918 
			 2003–04 0 — 
			 2004–05 0 — 
		
	
	Mobile phones are provided as part of a contract with Vodaphone which covers rental and charges.

Departmental Expenditure

Theresa Villiers: To ask the Solicitor-General how much his Department has spent on IT systems in each year since 1997; what the purpose of each system is; what the outturn against planned expenditure of each system was; and what the outturn time for implementation against planned time was.

Mike O'Brien: The expenditure of the Law Officers' Departments 1 on IT systems since 1997, where figures are available is shown in the following table 1.
	1 Include the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office but this office was not set up until 18 April 2005.
	
		
			 £000 
			 Financial year Crown Prosecution Service and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Serious Fraud Office Treasury Solicitor's Office Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers 
		
		
			 1997–98 (18)— 560 (18)— (18)— 
			 1998–99 (18)— 1,303 (18)— (18)— 
			 1999–2000 4,618 1,331 (18)— (18)— 
			 2000–01 13,358 1,815 (18)— (18)— 
			 2001–02 16,311 2,381 (18)— (18)— 
			 2002–03 14,707 2,793 1,835 201 
			 2003–04 29,013 2,934 2,412 240 
			 2004–05 42,998 3,175 2,416 179 
		
	
	(18) Figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
	The IT systems on which the above expenditure was incurred, their respective share of costs in the years in question and purpose are shown in the following tables and notes. It has not been possible to identify out-turn against planned expenditure nor the outturn time for implementation against planned time for each system without incurring disproportionate cost.
	
		Crown Prosecution Service £000
		
			  1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 
		
		
			 COMPASS Programme (PFI with LogicaCMG) — — — 13,528 25,827 38,516 
			 Connect Programme 787 9,710 11,534 23 — — 
			 Payroll and HR system(19) 519 875 569 — — 1,308 
			 Counsel Fee Data Processing(19) 126 118 104 — — — 
			 CIS(19) 80 318 168 37 — — 
			 FARMS — — — 508 826 2,076 
			 Ross 294 294 294 — — — 
			 Miscellaneous 2,811 2,043 3,643 612 2,360 1,098 
		
	
	(19) Payroll and HR system, Counsel fee Data Processing, CIS. The costs of the Payroll and HR system, Counsel Fee Data Processing and CIS were incorporated into the COMPASS contract in 2002–03 (CIS in mid 2002–03).
	The purpose of each IT system is:
	The COMPASS Programme: a 10 year Public Finance Initiative (PFI) partnership between the CPS and LogicaCMG to modernise IT services within the CPS. The COMPASS Programme has delivered nationally:
	A case management system (COMPASS CMS)
	A management information system (COMPASS MIS)
	A modern IT infrastructure for the Service
	A Witness Management System (WMS)
	There has been expenditure on IT set up costs to enable the Glidewell recommendations and Charging Programme (including CPS Direct) to be implemented and allow Crown Prosecution Service personnel access to systems in remote sites such as police premises, courts and prosecutors' homes in order to provide an out of hours service.
	The Connect Programme: to provide local area networks in each of the 42 CPS Areas; and to provide all staff with an IT device on their desk and the associated training.
	Payroll and Human Resources Systems: to record changes and pay all CPS staff. The Human Resources database is used to record the numbers and locations of all staff and provides career history details for each member of staff.
	Counsel fee data processing: in October 2001 the CPS introduced a new fee scheme and started to capture data in-house using an application called 'Parity'. Parity is now managed under the contract with LogicaCMG.
	Corporate Information System (CIS): one of the Service's strategic information systems, containing management information on performance indicators, finance, manpower/court sessions, payroll, higher court advocate usage and activity based costs.
	FARMS: stands for the Finance and Accounting Record Management System. It updated the older Ross system (described as follows) and allows for the recording of all resource accounting transactions for the CPS throughout England and Wales (over 300 users) in accordance with HM Treasury requirements to produce accrual based accounts.
	Ross: recorded the cash accounting transactions of the CPS prior to the introduction of FARMS.
	Miscellaneous: covers a combination of smaller systems that could be disaggregated only at disproportionate cost.
	Serious Fraud Office
	The costs shown for the Serious Fraud Office in table 1 all relate to a central IT system that supports the organisation and underpins the delivery of departmental business. Within the overall system there are sub- systems for financial and document management and DOCMAN is an evidence management system that directly supports casework.
	
		Treasury Solicitor's Department £
		
			  2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 
		
		
			 On Line Desktop Intranet System Implementation (20)14,180 (21)1,175 854,231 
			 EDRJVI—Electronic, Document and Records Management System Implementation 180,478 159,310 — 
			 Network Expansion/Installation to building 617 — — 
			 Groupwise Upgrade—Email System Upgrade 14,615 — — 
			 CFACS—Financial System Implementation 17,043 — — 
			 Personnel System Implementation 45,276 — — 
			 Security—IT Security (BS7799) Implementation 7,181 23,378 52,499 
			 Internet Systems Implementation 31,448 — — 
			 Remote Access—System Implementation 77,309 — — 
			 Windows 2000—IT Platform Upgrade from windows 95 35,741 — — 
		
	
	(20) Phase 1.
	(21) Phase 2 enhancement.

Asylum/Immigration

Jennifer Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers deported or removed from the United Kingdom in (a) 2004 and (b) 2005 were aged (i) 15, (ii) 16, (iii) 17 and (iv) 18 years; and if he will make a statement.

Tony McNulty: We believe that young people with no basis of stay in the UK can be returned to their countries of origin in a way that is safe, sustainable, and in their best interests.
	Only those young people whose asylum or humanitarian protection claims have been refused, and where their care and support needs have been matched to a tailored package of reception, care and reintegration support, will be returned to their countries of origin.
	We are confident that the measures we are putting in place meet, and supersede, our international obligations to provide access to food, water, shelter, healthcare and basic safety.
	The following table shows the removals of asylum applicants who claim to be 15, 16, 17 and 18 at the date of their removal, for the period 2004 to September 2005.
	Information on the removals of asylum applicants is published quarterly and annually in the regular asylum statistics, available from the Library of the House and on the Home Office RDS website: www.homeoffice. gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.
	
		Removals, voluntary departures(24), assisted returns, of asylum applicants aged 15, 16, 17 and 18 at date of removal, 2004 and 2005(25) Number of persons
		
			  2004 2005 
			 Age of applicants at date of removal Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 January to September total 
		
		
			 15 20 20 10 20 75 20 20 15 55 
			 16 20 25 15 25 85 20 30 20 70 
			 17 45 30 50 40 165 35 50 35 125 
			 18 110 100 95 85 390 95 90 95 280 
			 Total 195 175 170 170 710 170 195 165 525 
		
	
	(24) Includes enforced removals, persons departing' voluntarily' following enforcement action initiated against them, persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration.
	(25) Provisional figures.
	Notes:
	1. Figures rounded to the nearest five, with *=1 or 2, and may not sum due to rounding.
	2. Figures are likely to overstate because some applicants aged 18 or over claim to be younger on arrival in the United kingdom.
	3. Includes principal applicants and dependants.

Asylum/Immigration

Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the Entry Clearance Officers Operational Enforcement Manual.

Kim Howells: I have been asked to reply.
	The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Diplomatic Service Procedures (DSPs) for Entry Clearance give instructions to Entry Clearance Officers (ECOs) on the handling of entry clearance and visa applications. This is a live document that is regularly modified and if a hard copy were placed in the Library it may quickly become out of date.
	The Entry Clearance volume of the DSPs is available on the UKvisas website at http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk and may be accessed from the "More About UKvisas" heading.

Asylum/Immigration

Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours of training an (a) immigration officer and (b) entry clearance officer receives before taking up their post.

Tony McNulty: All immigration officers joining Border Control receive at least 10 weeks [c410 hours] full time training at the commencement of their employment. For Enforcement and Removals, new immigration officers also receive 10 weeks [c.410 hours] full time training while those transferring from Border Control receive seven weeks [c 287 hours] as much of the necessary legislative and interviewing skills are already known to them. Developmental and functional training is available to all immigration officers throughout their career although there are no set minimum or maximum limits to how much an individual can receive. Therefore, after induction training the amount each immigration officer receives will depend upon individual and business needs.
	All entry clearance officers who have no relevant recent immigration background knowledge and experience are required to attend a three week course (c 120 hours) before taking up their post. Immigration officers with the relevant background knowledge and experience are required to attend a one week (c 40 hours) "conversion" course before taking up duty.

Correspondence

Clare Short: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of 8 December 2005 on behalf of Paul Albert Millwood (Home Office Reference M1081731).

Tony McNulty: The Immigration and Nationality Directorate replied to my right hon. Friend on 20 February 2006.

Correspondence

Clare Short: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 20 September 2005 from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, regarding the application of Mr. Malleit Ram, Home Office reference R1059053 for leave to remain.

Tony McNulty: The Immigration and Nationality Directorate replied to my right hon. Friend on 20 February 2006.

Crime

Anne Snelgrove: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many instances of vandalism were reported in (a) Swindon and (b) England in each year between 1997 and 2005.

Hazel Blears: The requested information is given in the following tables.
	Offences of vandalism are recorded within the criminal damage group classification.
	Crime statistics for Swindon are recorded at crime and disorder reduction partnership (CDRP) level; and for the offence of criminal damage are available from 2000–01 to 2004–05.
	
		Table 1: Recorded offences of criminal damage, 1997 Number of offences recorded
		
			 Period Swindon CDRP England 
		
		
			 1997 — 822,029 
		
	
	Note:
	The data in this table is prior to the introduction of the revised counting rules for recorded crime, which came into effect on 1 April 1998. Therefore, this figure is not directly comparable with those for later years.
	
		Table 2: Recorded offences of criminal damage, 1998–99 to 2001–02 Number of offences recorded
		
			 Period Swindon CDRP England 
		
		
			 1998–99 — 823,520 
			 1999–2000 — 890,756 
			 2000–01 2,990 906,800 
			 2001–02 3,422 1,007,634 
		
	
	Note:
	The data in this table is prior to the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard. These figures are not directly comparable with those for later years.
	
		Table 3: Recorded offences of criminal damage, 2002–03 to 2004–05 Number of offences recorded
		
			 Period Swindon CDRP England 
		
		
			 2002–03 3,533 1,043,197 
			 2003–04 3,660 1,139,308 
			 2004–05 3,567 1,121,057 
		
	
	Note:
	The data in this table takes account of the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard in April 2002. These figures are not directly comparable with those for earlier years.

Crime Detection (Eastern Region)

Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what crime detection rates were recorded for (a) violence against the person, (b) sexual offences, (c) robberies, (d) burglaries, (e) theft of a vehicle and (f) drug-related offences in (i) Peterborough constituency and (ii) the Eastern Region in the last year for which figures are available.

Hazel Blears: Detection data are collected at force and basic command unit levels only. Information for Cambridgeshire Northern BCU and Eastern Region is given in the following table.
	
		Detection rates 2004–05 Percentage
		
			  Eastern region Cambridgeshire Northern BCU 
		
		
			 Violence against the person 61 53 
			 Sexual offences 35 28 
			 Robbery 25 20 
			 Burglary 15 15 
			 Theft of a vehicle 20 26 
			 Drug offences 94 89

Identity Cards

Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to ensure that individuals who are not in possession of the proposed identity card will not be denied access to emergency services; and if he will make a statement.

Andy Burnham: The Government have always made clear that an ID card will not be required at any time for access to emergency treatment. This was emphasised when the policy was announced in November 2003, in 'Identity Cards: The Next Steps' (Cm 6020)
	"No one would ever be refused medical treatment in an emergency or emergency social security benefits nor would vulnerable groups be refused critical services such as access to hostels or refuges because they were unable to produce an identity card."
	It would not in any case be possible to require the production of an ID card for emergency treatment as the Identity Cards Bill currently before Parliament explicitly precludes the making of regulations requiring people to carry a card at all times. In addition, no free public service will be able to require the production of an ID card without new primary legislation.

Oakington Immigration Reception Centre

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been detained at Oakington Immigration Reception Centre for longer than 10 days in each of the last six weeks.

Tony McNulty: Since July 2005 the situation has changed regarding the detention of children at Oakington as the family block closed on 29 October 2005.
	Information on the number of children, detained under Immigration Act powers for a period of greater than 10 days at Oakington was collated on a snapshot basis from management information and is not National Statistics. The table covers the six week period—6 June to 11 July 2005.
	Information on the number of persons detained under Immigration Act powers as at 24 September 2005 was published in the Quarterly Asylum Statistics publication on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html
	
		Minors(31) recorded as being in detention for more than 10 days at Oakington Reception Centre in the United Kingdom solely under Immigration Act powers as at the weeks commencing, 6 June 2005 to 11 July 2005(32)(33) Number of individuals
		
			 Week commencing Monday: Minors(31) 
		
		
			 6 June 12 
			 13 June 25 
			 20 June 18 
			 27 June 4 
			 4 July 36 
			 11 July 17 
		
	
	(31) People recorded as being under 18.
	(32) Relates to current period of detention only.
	(33) These data are provisional.

Pensioners

Hugh Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of old age pensioners reported that they (a) were victims of crime and (b) were worried about crime in 2004–05.

Hazel Blears: The 2004–05 British Crime Survey (BCS) found that older people were less likely to be victims of crime than the England and Wales average and than younger people (see Tables 1 and 2).
	Table 1 shows that 1.6 per cent. of households where the household reference person was aged 75 and over were victims of one or more burglaries in 2004–05, compared with 2.7 per cent. of all households and 7.1 per cent. of households where the household reference person was aged 16 to 24.
	In 2004–05, 2.6 per cent. of households where the household reference person was aged 75 and over were victims of one or more vehicle thefts, compared with 8.2 per cent. of all vehicle owning households and 12.1 per cent. of households where the household reference person was aged 16 to 24.
	Table 2 shows that 0.2 per cent. of men and 0.5 per cent. of women aged 75 and over were victims of one or more incidents of violence in 2004–05. This compares with 3.6 per cent. of all adults, 14.6 per cent. of men aged 16 to 24 and 6.3 per cent. of women aged 16 to 24.
	The latest statistics published on worry about crime by age are from the 2002–03 BCS (Table 3). These show that older people are generally less likely to be worried about crime than younger people, particularly car crime and violent crime. Six per cent. of men aged 75 and over had high levels of worry about being a victim of violence, compared with 16 per cent. of men aged 16 to 24, while 19 per cent. of women aged 75 and over had high levels of worry about being a victim of violence, compared with 37 per cent. of women aged 16 to 24.
	There are no published BCS figures where a distinction is made between older people who are retired and those who are still in work.
	
		Table 1: Percentage of households victims of burglary and vehicle thefts by age of household reference person, 2004–05 BCS Percentage victims once or more
		
			 Age of household reference person  All burglary  All vehicle theft 
		
		
			 16–24 7.1 12.1 
			 25–44 3.6 10.7 
			 45–64 2.1 8.0 
			 65–74 1.5 3.3 
			 75+ 1.6 2.6 
			 All households 2.7 8.2 
		
	
	Note:
	Figures for vehicle thefts based on households owning or with regular use of a vehicle.
	
		Table 2: Percentage of adult victims of violence by age, 2004–05 BCS Percentage victims once or more
		
			  All violence 
		
		
			 Men 4.7 
			 16–24 14.6 
			 25–44 5.0 
			 45–64 2.1 
			 65–74 0.4 
			 75+ 0.2 
			 Women 2.6 
			 16–24 6.3 
			 25–44 3.2 
			 45–64 1.7 
			 65–74 0.5 
			 75+ 0.5 
			 All adults 3.6 
		
	
	
		Table 3: Worry about crime by age, 2002–03 BCS Percentage with high level of worry
		
			  Burglary Car crime Violence 
		
		
			 Men 12 16 10 
			 16–24 11 24 16 
			 25–44 12 16 10 
			 45–64 13 16 10 
			 65–74 11 12 7 
			 75 or older 9 8 6 
			 Women 17 17 29 
			 16–24 18 25 37 
			 25–44 17 17 31 
			 45–64 18 17 28 
			 65–74 18 15 24 
			 75 or older 14 9 19 
			 All adults 15 17 21

Police

Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (a) police officers and (b) community support officers have been employed in Bexhill-on-sea in each year since 1997.

Hazel Blears: holding answer 30 November 2005
	This information is not available. Police numbers at basic command unit (BCU) level have been collected only since March 2002 and for community support officers since June 2005. Bexhill-on-sea is a part of the Hastings and Rother (Senlac) area basic command unit. Data on police and CSO numbers for this BCU, for the period March 2002 to June 2005, is set out in the table.
	
		Hastings and Rother (Senlac) BCU—police officer and CSO strength, 2002 to 2005 Number
		
			 As at 31 March: Officers Community support officers 
		
		
			 2002(37) 254.8 n/a 
			 2003(38) 291 n/a 
			 2004(38) 294 n/a 
			 2005(38) 302.36 (39)36 
		
	
	n/a=Not available.
	(37) Data collected by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary.
	(38) Data collected by Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
	(39) As at 30 June 2005.

Special Constables

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what average number of hours per week was worked by a special constable in (a) Leicester and (b) England and Wales in each year since the beginning of the scheme;
	(2)  what funding his Department has allocated to the special constables scheme in each year it has been running in (a) Leicester and (b) England and Wales;
	(3)  what training is provided for special constables;
	(4)  how many special constables have been recruited in (a) Leicester and (b) England and Wales since the beginning of the scheme.

Hazel Blears: Home Office specific grants to forces under the Special Constabulary Capacity Building Scheme began in January 2004. In the year 1 April 2004–31 March 2005, 58 special constables were recruited by Leicestershire Constabulary, with 3,636 special constables recruited in England and Wales.
	Grant payments to forces during the first two years of the scheme are shown in the table. Applications for year three grant are currently being considered.
	
		
			   £ 
			  2004 2005 
		
		
			 Leicestershire 41,742 51,037 
			 All forces in England and Wales 2,044,054 2,473,009 
		
	
	Special constables are volunteers and the hours individual specials work varies. Available information on the average number of special constable hours worked per week are as follows:
	
		Hours
		
			  2003–04 2004–05 
		
		
			 Leicestershire 354 479 
			 24 forces providing data 16,606 18,281 
		
	
	(Forces not providing data are Avon and Somerset, Cambridgeshire, Cleveland, Derbyshire, Durham, Greater Manchester, Humberside, Lancashire, Merseyside, Metropolitan police, North Wales, North Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, South Wales, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex, Thames Valley and West Midlands.)
	Forces are responsible for ensuring that their special constables receive training necessary to enable them to undertake their duties. A specials learning and development programme was introduced last year to provide a professional and consistent approach to training, allowing specials to develop in the workplace alongside their regular colleagues.

Departmental Information

Roger Gale: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much was spent on her Department's public relations and information services in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

Harriet Harman: Since the Department was created in June 2003 it has spent the following amounts on information services:
	
		
			   £ 
			   Project Expenditure on information services 
		
		
			 2003–04 Magistrates recruitment 63,330 
			 2004–05 as above 79,589 
			 2005–06 as above 134,297 
		
	
	It has had no expenditure on PR.

Electoral Reform

Mike Hancock: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs if she will make it her policy to lower the voting age to 16 years; and if she will make a statement.

Harriet Harman: The Government are concerned at the decline in participation in the democratic process by young people. It notes the recommendation in the independent Electoral Commission's report "Age of Electoral Majority" (April 2004) that the minimum voting age should be kept at 18 for now, but that this should be reviewed again within five to seven years. The Electoral Administration Bill currently under consideration by Parliament includes a provision to reduce the minimum age of candidacy for elections from 21 to 18. The Government will keep the voting age under active consideration.

Electoral Reform

James Duddridge: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what recent representations she has received concerning voter turnout in the 2005 General Election.

Harriet Harman: Last October, The Electoral Commission published its report "Election 2005: turnout How many, who and why?", which provides a comprehensive analysis breakdown of data on turnout at the May 2005 General Election.

Electoral Reform

Austin Mitchell: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what evidence the review of electoral systems is examining; and when it is expected to report.

Bridget Prentice: The Government's internal review is desk-based, examining a range of existing publications and materials. These include, for example, the reports of the Independent Commission on the Voting Systems ("the Jenkins report"), the Independent Commission on Proportional Representation (ICPR), and the Arbuthnott Commission's report on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems. Decisions regarding any next steps for the review will be taken in due course.

Burma

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of imports from Burma into the UK in November and December 2005, broken down by type.

Ian Pearson: Information on the UK's imports of goods from Burma by product in November and December 2005 is given in the following table.
	
		UK Imports of goods from Burma—November and December 2005—At 2 digit Standard International Trade Classification (SITC) level £000
		
			 SITC Description November 2005 December 2005 
		
		
			 03 Fish, (not marine mammals), crustaceans, molluscs, etc. 694 531 
			 04 Cereals and cereal preparations 0 7 
			 05 Vegetables and fruit 8 8 
			 24 Cork and wood 0 102 
			 64 Paper, paperboard, and articles of paper pulp; etc. 9 0 
			 65 Textile yarn, fabrics, made-up articles, nes 19 0 
			 66 Non-metallic mineral manufactures 4 6 
			 69 Manufactures of metal nes 0 1 
			 77 Electrical machinery, apparatus and appliances, nes and parts 0 19 
			 82 Furniture and parts thereof; bedding, mattresses, cushions etc. 0 34 
			 83 Travel goods, handbags and similar containers 10 3 
			 84 Articles of apparel and clothing accessories 1,111 663 
			 85 Footwear 152 304 
			 89 Miscellaneous manufactured article nes 9 0 
			 90 Commodities and Transactions not elsewhere classified in the SITC 17 21 
			  Total UK Imports of Goods from Burma 2,033 1,699 
		
	
	nes=not elsewhere specified
	Source:
	HM Revenue and Customs Overseas Trade Statistics (OTS1)

Coal Health Claims

Dan Norris: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure miners' compensation claims in relation to respiratory problems are processed as swiftly as possible.

Malcolm Wicks: Last year, the Department introduced risk offer payments for respiratory disease claims, often referred to as "fast-track" payments. For living claimants, offers are made based on the initial medical tests and the claims will not yet have gone through the full medical assessment process (MAP). Compensation will be paid quickly, freeing up specialist medical consultants to concentrate on assessing miners with higher levels of disability through the MAP. The scheme went live on 28 February 2005. More than 65,000 offers have been made and the acceptance rate is currently 95 per cent. The average payment is around £2,150.
	In claims from the families of deceased miners, the Department make offers of £1,200 to widows and £1,000 to estates in cases where there is no information on the death certificate about respiratory conditions. The deceased fast-track scheme became operational in early September 2005 in England and Wales and on 1 November 2005 in Scotland.
	It is hoped that the fast-track offers have the potential to shorten the overall compensation scheme by around two years.

Energy Policy

Diane Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the merits of pursuing a policy of the UK becoming an oil free economy.

Malcolm Wicks: The Energy Review which I am leading has a remit to look at how to secure clean, affordable energy for the long term. In the consultation document which we published on 23 January we have specifically asked about
	"potential measures to help bring forward technologies to replace fossil fuels in transport and heat generation in the medium and long term".

Export Control Act

Paul Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the content and timetable of the proposed review of the Export Control Act 2002.

Malcolm Wicks: The Cabinet Office 'Regulatory Impact Assessment Guidance', 2005 (updating 'Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment', 2003) recommends that "a Post-Implementation Review (PIR) establishes whether implemented regulations are having the intended effect and whether they are implementing policy objectives efficiently". Accordingly we shall review the regulations made under the Export Control Act, which came into force during March and May 2004, from May 2007. The precise content and timing will be considered nearer the time.

Green Electricity

Michael Wills: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce an accreditation scheme for green electricity tariffs.

Malcolm Wicks: Ofgem will be publishing a response to its consultation on the "Revision of Guidelines on Green Supply Offerings" and the introduction of an accreditation scheme for green electricity tariffs will be considered in the light of this.

Power Generation Technologies

Alan Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding his Department has allocated to hydrogen power technologies in each year since 1997.

Malcolm Wicks: On 15 June 2005, I announced the Government's response to the report "A Strategic Framework for Hydrogen Energy Activity in the UK" 1 which included a funding package from my department of £15 million over four years for a UK wide hydrogen and fuel cell demonstration programme. The demonstration scheme is currently in preparation, and will require EC state aid approval.
	Currently, my Department supports industrial collaborative research and development for fuel cell and hydrogen technologies through the Technology Programme (and previously through the new and renewable energy programme). Fuel Cells have been supported since 1992. Bids specifically for hydrogen technologies have been invited since April 2005. The programme seeks to advance these technologies for both stationary power generation and transport applications, with a view to achieving the cost reductions and performance levels necessary for commercial deployment. This support has amounted to approximately £2 million per annum since 1997.
	The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), including through the SUPERGEN initiative, support basic research in universities on both fuel cells and hydrogen. SUPERGEN supports the UK Sustainable Hydrogen Energy Consortium (UK SHEC) which has received funding of £2.5 million. This programme is supporting projects on: hydrogen generation; hydrogen storage; and socio-economic implications for a hydrogen economy. In addition to SUPERGEN, EPSRC has awarded £1 million to investigate the potential role of formic acid as a chemical method for the storage of hydrogen. £500,000 has been granted to three projects on fundamental science and engineering relevant to the hydrogen economy. EPSRC also contributes to projects through the DTI's Technology Programme. More widely, the research councils EPSRC, ESRC, and NERC have recently established the UK Energy Research Centre.
	The Government have also provided funding of over £450,000 for the trial of three hydrogen-powered fuel cell buses in London as part of the EU CUTE (Clean Urban Transport in Europe) project. £7.5 million of funding has been provided for the fuel cell and low carbon vehicle technology Centre of Excellence (CENEX) based in Loughborough.
	The Department for Transport announced in January, as part of their Horizons innovative research programme, a competition for projects to investigate the options for the further steps required to move to the adoption of a hydrogen transport infrastructure. It is hoped to support between two and four projects examining the practicality and timing of the introduction of the required infrastructure to support hydrogen-fuelled vehicles at a cost of up to £500,000.
	1 The full text of which is freely available at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sepn/hydrogen.shtml

Renewable Energy

Gregory Barker: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment his Department has made of the impact of trends in gas and electricity prices on the cost-effectiveness of renewable energy technologies in the domestic sector.

Malcolm Wicks: The Energy Saving Trust Report "Potential for Micro generation—Study and Analysis" (www.dti.gov.uk/energy), commissioned by the DTI, examines the costs and benefits of a range of microgeneration technologies in the domestic sector. The assessment takes into account the latest gas and electricity price projections published on the DTI website at that time.
	Recent increases in gas and electricity prices will make renewable technologies in the domestic sector relatively more cost-effective. In November 2005, the Prime Minister announced that there would be a review of energy policy that would report in summer 2006. The review will consider all options including the role of current generating technologies such as renewables, as well as new and emerging technologies.

Video Games Industry

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 
	(1)  what estimate he has made of how much the video games industry has been worth to the UK economy in each of the past five years;
	(2)  what estimate he has made of how many people were employed in the video games industry in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

Alun Michael: No official estimates have been made of the number of people employed in the video games industry, or the value of the industry to the UK economy, but Screen Digest, the audiovisual industry analysts, have estimated that there were slightly under 9,000 people employed in the development and publishing of video games software in 2004, up from around 8,400 in 2000 1 .
	The DTI's 2002 competitiveness analysis of the UK games software industry, "From exuberant youth to sustainable maturity", included an estimate of the contribution of the UK games software development and publishing industries to the UK economy of £711 million in 2001 2 .
	1 "European Interactive Games. The 2005 state of the industry report", Screen Digest, March 2005.
	2 Spectrum Games Industry Forecasts.

Railways

Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many obstructions of railway track by road vehicles have occurred as a result of (a) misadventure and (b) vandalism in each year since 1997; and how many of these have led to a train striking the vehicle.

Derek Twigg: The data in the following table is extracted from notifications to the Health and Safety Executive under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 1995. RIDDOR data does not break down the cause of obstructions on a line.
	
		
			  1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
		
		
			 Line obstructed by a road vehicle. Excludes level crossings. 27 37 39 31 30 31 22 25 21 
			 Train colliding with a road vehicle—vandalism. Excludes level crossings. 2 1 3 2 3 3 0 3 4 
			 Train colliding with a road vehicle—other causes. Excludes level crossings. 2 1 3 0 5 2 1 2 1 
			 Train colliding with a road vehicle(45) at level crossing 20 32 26 24 15 16 29 20 20 
		
	
	(45) For level crossing incidents, the definition of "vehicle" includes bicycles as well as motor vehicles.
	Data for 2005 is provisional at this stage. The figures are for Great Britain.

Train Fares

David Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 
	(1)  if he will list the representations he has received from individuals and organisations in Southend on (a) increases in fares by C2C Rail Ltd and (b) the decision by C2C Rail Ltd to abolish Flexitime and Early Bird season tickets; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  what discussions he has had with C2C Rail Ltd about their decision to abolish (a) Flexitime and (b) Early Bird season tickets; what consultation the company undertook in advance of the decision; and if he will make a statement;
	(3)  what the cost of (a) a weekly, (b) a monthly and (c) an annual season rail ticket from (i) Southend-on-Sea, (ii) Chalkwell and (iii) Leigh-on-Sea to London Fenchurch Street was in each year since 1996;
	(4)  what consultation was undertaken by C2C Rail Ltd about increasing its fares in January; and if he will make a statement;
	(5)  what recent representations he has received from (a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public about the decision of C2C Rail Ltd to increase its fares in January; and if he will make a statement.

Derek Twigg: Train operators are not required to consult the Department when setting fares, although all regulated fares must be set within prescribed limits. Regulated fares cover most of those used by commuters, including full fare singles, returns and season tickets from Southend, Chalkwell and Leigh on Sea to London. Regulated fares are limited to an average annual increase of 1 per cent. more than inflation from 2004 onwards. Regulated fares in London and the Southeast are on average more than 3 per cent. lower in 2006 in real terms than in 1995.
	The following table compares fares on C2C in 1995 and 2006, showing the reduction in real terms in fares from Southend to London:
	
		
			 £ 
			  Journey Weekly Monthly Annual 
		
		
			 1995 Southend to London terminals 50.30 193.20 2,012.00 
			 2006 Southend to London terminals 58.30 223.90 2,332.00 
			  
			 1995 Chalkwell to London terminals 49.60 190.50 1,984.00 
			 2006 Chalkwell to London terminals 56.50 217.00 2,260.00 
			  
			 1995 Leigh on Sea to London terminals 49.40 189.70 1,976.00 
			 2006 Leigh on Sea to London terminals 56.50 217.00 2,260.00 
		
	
	Note:
	Inflation over the same period=33 per cent.
	Unregulated fares, which includes off-peak fares and C2C's 'flexitime' or 'earlybird' seasons, may be set by the operator on a commercial basis, and discontinued (or new fares introduced) as the operator sees fit. It is not necessary for train operators to carry out consultation or to consult the Department when these fares are varied and the Department has received no representations on the subject.

Transport (Disabled Access)

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further plans he has to improve access to transport for disabled people.

Karen Buck: We are building on the progress we have already made in implementing accessibility regulations under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995 for trains and trams and for buses and coaches.
	The provisions in the DDA 2005 enable us to enhance further the accessibility of public transport. In particular, it provides for us to lift the transport exemption in Part 3 of the DDA (that covers access to goods, services and facilities). We have already made regulations that will lift the exemption in relation to public transport-buses and coaches, trains and trams, taxis and private hire vehicles-as well as for vehicles used on leisure and tourism services, vehicle hire services and vehicle breakdown services. Those regulations come into force on 4 December this year.
	On rail the DDA 2005 also requires us to set an "end date"-of no later than 1 January 2020-by which time all rail vehicles will have to meet accessibility regulations. The Act also provides for those regulations to be applied to rail vehicles when they are refurbished.
	We are also working to introduce compliance certification and a more responsive enforcement regime. We propose that those measures will be in place by the end of this year.
	We are also addressing affordability of services. From 1 April this year, disabled people in England will be guaranteed free off-peak local bus travel. The rail industry also provides for concessionary travel on rail services through the Disabled Persons' Railcard.

Departmental Staff

Anne Main: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his Department's definition is of bullying for the purposes of staff welfare and discipline.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Bullying is not specifically defined within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister but harassment and bullying are examples of alleged or perceived behaviour that would be considered under "serious misconduct" within the ODPM's disciplinary procedures.
	In addition the Staff Handbook of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister states that irrespective of race, ethnic or national origin, nationality, age, religion, sex, gender identity, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, working hours, agreed working patterns, fixed term appointment, union membership, union office or union activity, the ODPM will provide staff with, and staff have a right to, a working environment free from discrimination, harassment, bullying and victimisation and access to a complaints and grievances procedure for dealing with discrimination, harassment, bullying and victimisation in the workplace.

Homelessness

Eric Pickles: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of how many and what proportion of homeless people (a) are ex-service personnel and (b) have mental health problems.

Yvette Cooper: Information about local authorities' actions under homelessness legislation is collected in respect of applicant households, and distinguishes the number accepted as eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in a priority need category. Households containing persons considered vulnerable as a result of a mental disability and, since July 2002, persons vulnerable as a result of having served in Her Majesty's regular armed forces have a priority need.
	The number of households accepted as homeless in these two categories by English local authorities during 2004–05, and during the first six months of 2005–06, and the percentage that these represent of all acceptances, is presented in the following table. These figures will not necessarily represent all homelessness acceptances involving ex-forces personnel or those with mental health problems, as some may be concealed within other main priority need categories—such as households with dependent children, or an expectant mother.
	
		Statutory homelessness: England
		
			  Local authority acceptances(55) where the main category of priority need was reported(56) as "Vulnerability as a result of ..: All 
			  having served in HM Forces" mental illness or disability" households accepted in 
			  Number Percentage Number Percentage priority need 
		
		
			 2004–05 100 0.1 10,650 8.8 120,860 
			 2005–06(57) 40 0.1 4,180 8.0 52,110 
		
	
	(55) Households accepted by the local authority as eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need and therefore owed a main homelessness duty.
	(56) Figures include ODPM estimates for any non-response, and have been rounded to the nearest ten.
	(57) April to September.
	Source:
	ODPM P1E homelessness returns (quarterly)
	Information is also collected on the number of people who sleep rough, that is, those with no fixed abode who are literally roofless. As at June 2005 there were an estimated 459 people sleeping rough in England on any one single night, the lowest ever recorded figure. In 2001, a survey estimated that 14 per cent. of rough sleepers had served in the forces at some point in their lives, although more recent analysis suggest this has fallen to 10 per cent.
	A 1996 study found that just over half of people sleeping rough using day centres had symptoms indicative of common mental health problems, while a 2002 survey commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister suggested that between a third and a half of rough sleepers have mental health problems.

Homelessness

Eric Pickles: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent assessment the Government have made of the causes of homelessness.

Yvette Cooper: The Government's understanding of the causes of homelessness and the actions that can be taken to tackle it more effectively was summarised in 2005 in the strategy for tackling homelessness, "Sustainable Communities: settled homes, changing lives". This endorsed the analysis in the 2002 report "More than a roof". Homelessness is caused by a number of factors, some of which relate to the wider state of the economy and the housing market and others which are personal to the individual or family, or reflect social and demographic change.
	The overall supply of affordable housing is a key structural factor and the Government are increasing investment to deliver 75,000 social rented homes and 40,000 homes for essential public sector workers and low cost home ownership by 2008. Options for making greater use of the private rented sector as a source of settled solutions for homeless households are also being developed.
	Local authorities are asked to record the reasons when they accept a household as being unintentionally homeless and in priority need. The most recent statutory homelessness statistics for England (for the third quarter of 2005) are on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website. The most important recorded reasons are parents, relatives or friends no longer willing to accommodate the household, the breakdown of a relationship with a partner and the ending of an assured shorthold tenancy. Since 2002 the Government have promoted an increasing emphasis on developing innovative approaches to the prevention of homelessness. Successful approaches to homelessness prevention have been developed to address the presenting problems of households approaching local authorities, for example mediation to resolve family and relationship breakdown and rent deposit schemes to provide access to the private rented sector.
	It is recognised that the recorded reasons often obscure a complex chain of events that preceded the homelessness acceptance. At present relatively little is known about the personal, social and economic circumstances of homeless families and other vulnerable people accepted by local authorities, and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is undertaking further research to improve understanding of the deeper social and personal issues involved. To address this gap in the evidence base the ODPM is currently conducting a major survey of households with children and of young people accepted as homeless by local authorities on the causes, impacts and costs of homelessness. This study will report in the summer of 2006 and results will be published later this year.

Homelessness

Justine Greening: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate his Department has made of homelessness in (a) 2004–05, (b) 2005–06 and (c) 2006–07, in each London borough; and if he will make a statement.

Yvette Cooper: holding answer 9 February 2006
	Information collected quarterly on the number of decisions made by local authorities on applications for assistance under homelessness legislation, includes the number of households accepted as eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need. Also reported is the number of households in temporary accommodation arranged by local authorities under homelessness legislation as at the end of each quarter. These figures at local authority, regional and national level are included in a supplementary table to the Statistical Release on homelessness, published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister each quarter.
	Summary information is presented in the following table for each London borough for 2004–05 and for the first six months of 2005–06; results for the fourth quarter (October-December) 2005 will be published in a Statistical Release on 13 March.
	Estimates of the number of people who sleep rough, that is, those who are literally roofless on a single night, are also published by the Department and the estimates for 2005 are also presented in the table.
	The ODPM does not publish forecasts of homeless acceptances or the number of people sleeping rough at local authority level.
	
		Households accepted(58) as homeless during the year, households in temporary accommodation at the end of the period, and numbers of rough sleepers
		
			 London borough Households accepted during 2004–05 Households in TA(59) at 31 March 2005 Rough sleepers(60) (persons) 2004 Households accepted during April-September 2005 Households in TA(59) at 30 September 2005 Rough sleepers(60) (persons) 2005 
		
		
			 Barking and Dagenham 775 474 0 210 477 0 
			 Barnet 758 2,334 0 n/a 2,418 0 
			 Bexley 430 377 0 123 388 0 
			 Brent 795 4,453 6 385 4,422 1 
			 Bromley n/a 451 0 361 974 0 
			 Camden 1,148 2,172 5 400 2,063 17 
			 City of London 31 34 22 12 26 12 
			 Croydon 1,126 3,346 0 361 3,018 0 
			 Ealing 789 2,221 4 383 2,340 1 
			 Enfield n/a n/a 0 467 3,258 0 
			 Greenwich 1,157 543 0 550 635 0 
			 Hackney 1,153 2,479 8 n/a 2,320 7 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 653 1,825 3 239 1,650 2 
			 Haringey 1,175 5,309 4 586 5,521 6 
			 Harrow 96 1,275 0 52 1,216 1 
			 Havering 200 814 0 154 966 1 
			 Hillingdon 461 1,878 0 219 1,732 3 
			 Hounslow 891 1,234 0 420 1,308 3 
			 Islington 1,130 1,550 1 n/a n/a 3 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 589 1,196 10 178 1,199 12 
			 Kingston upon Thames n/a n/a 0 122 745 0 
			 Lambeth 1,644 2,378 12 728 2,401 7 
			 Lewisham 1,245 1,847 0 626 1,742 3 
			 Merton 261 156 0 134 146 0 
			 Newham n/a 5,815 3 816 6,483 0 
			 Redbridge n/a n/a 0 317 2,641 0 
			 Richmond upon Thames 279 458 0 143 418 0 
			 Southwark 1,668 969 6 562 987 7 
			 Sutton 272 636 0 139 624 0 
			 Tower Hamlets 1,151 2,948 5 409 2,839 0 
			 Waltham Forest 800 1,807 1 404 1,890 2 
			 Wandsworth 840 1,593 0 345 1,519 0 
			 Westminster 1,112 3,148 175 555 3,250 133 
		
	
	(58) All households eligible under homelessness legislation, found to be unintentionally homeless and in a priority need category, and consequently owed a main homelessness duty, n/a denotes the authority failed to provide a return for one or more quarters of the year
	(59) Households in accommodation either pending a decision on their homelessness application or awaiting allocation of a settled home following acceptance. Excludes those households designated as "homeless at home" that have remained in their existing accommodation and have the same rights to suitable alternative accommodation as those in accommodation arranged by the authority.
	(60) Number of persons sleeping rough, based on local authority mid-year counts or estimates.
	Source:
	ODPM P1E Homelessness returns (quarterly) and HSSA returns (annual).

Parking

Eric Pickles: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what changes the Government has made to guidance to local planning authorities on (a) parking spaces, (b) parking charges and (c) parking fines since May 1997.

Yvette Cooper: PPG 13 "Transport" (2001) advises local planning authorities on maximum parking standards for new development for certain non residential land uses, and PPG3 "Housing" (2000) gives similar advice in respect of residential parking. Parking charges and parking penalty charges are a matter for local traffic authorities rather than local planning authorities. Parking fines are a matter for the police.

Planning Applications

Tony Wright: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of planning applications were (a) refused, (b) appealed and (c) granted an appeal in each local authority in each of the last five years.

Yvette Cooper: The information is published annually in table 2.3 of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's "Development Control Statistics, England". Copies are also available in the Library of the House (except the electronic-only editions from 2002–03) and all are available on the ODPM website. The full series is accessible from: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1161426.
	For 1999–2000 to 2003–04 the tables are found under the sub-heading "list of tables". The 2004–05 edition will be completed shortly.

Planning Guidance

Gregory Barker: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the (a) date and (b) subject matter was of each of his Department's (i) circulars and (ii) statements on planning and climate change policy sent to local and regional planning authorities in (A) 2003, (B) 2004 and (C) 2005.

Yvette Cooper: Climate change considerations are among the matters dealt with in a number of recent Planning Policy Statements in England. These include the following.
	
		
			  PPS Subject 
		
		
			 2005 PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development 
			 2005 PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation 
			 2005 PPS25 (draft) Development and Flood Risk (at consultation) 
			 2004 PPS11 Regional Spatial Strategies 
			 2004 PPS12 Local Development Frameworks 
			 2004 PPS22 Renewable Energy 
		
	
	In addition, in 2004 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, together with the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly Government published for the information of planners and local authorities in Great Britain an overview of current thinking and the state of knowledge in the subject. This overview, "The Planning Response to Climate Change—Advice on Better Practice", had been prepared by CAG Consultants of London and Oxford Brookes university.

Renewable Energy

Gregory Barker: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to promote the take-up of positive planning for renewables policies among local planning authorities.

Yvette Cooper: The Government's national polices on planning for renewable energy in England are set out in "Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy" (PPS22). PPS22 says that local development documents should contain policies designed to promote and encourage the development of renewable energy resources. Further advice on the framing of such policies, together with practical advice as to how these policies can be implemented on the ground, are included in the Companion Guide to PPS22.

Stakeholder Perceptions Report

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the MORI research study on his Department's Stakeholder Perceptions (Final Report).

Jim Fitzpatrick: MORI were commissioned to undertake two stakeholder perception Surveys for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2003 and 2005. Arrangements are being made to make available copies of the Final Reports of each Survey in the Library of the House.
	MORI have stated in the findings of the 2005 survey "that there has been real progress in the way internal and external stakeholders perceive the ODPM since 2003. More people are advocates of the Office and more people now regard it favourably." However, we recognise that challenges remain. We take very seriously the views of our stakeholders and we have put in place robust measures to address the concerns highlighted and improve our engagement with our stakeholders still further.

Sustainable Communities

Anne Main: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer to Q53 in evidence to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and Regions Committee of 7 February 2006, what the evidential basis was for his statement (a) that architects, planners and local authorities do not talk to the Highways Agency and (b) that none of the professional bodies assesses issues in the context of sustainability.

Jim Fitzpatrick: There is a body of research, carried out over the past few years, that has highlighted how the lack of communication and partnerships between the stakeholders involved in the delivery of sustainable communities can result in poor urban environments. Key conclusions have emphasised that each party often sees their role in isolation rather than contributing to the delivery of sustainable communities. Examples of research, both directly commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and that from independent bodies, include Paving the way (ODPM and Cabe) 2002; "Better Streets, Better Places" (ODPM and DfT) 2003; and "Egan Review of Skills" (ODPM) 2004.
	The Government, through the new Academy for Sustainable Communities, aims to address this weakness by working with key stakeholders, including professional bodies, to improve the processes and skill base ensuring that all parties are working together to support the development of sustainable communities.
	In addition ODPM are also asking our delivery agencies and partners to ensure that they bring together these different disciplines so that for example the Highways Agency is represented on or has close links to the Growth areas local delivery bodies.

Swindon Borough Council

Michael Wills: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to encourage senior representatives of Swindon Borough Council to hold regular public meetings to promote local dialogue on measures taken to address anti-social behaviour.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Respect programme sets out the Government's intention to empower local communities to challenge and tackle antisocial behaviour through greater awareness of the powers available to them.
	We will ensure effective dialogue between local people and services by introducing regular and systematic "face the people" briefing sessions, involving senior representation from the police and local authorities.
	These sessions will provide an opportunity for communities to make clear their priorities and to hold those responsible for service delivery to account. They will also allow senior staff to engage the community in tackling local problems—including raising issues where they can take action to help combat antisocial behaviour.
	We are also committed to rolling out neighbourhood policing nationwide—giving local people a greater say in how their area is policed and to introducing the 'community call for action' so that communities have a formal mechanism to hold service providers to account where delivery falls short of expected standards.

Town and Country Planning Act

David Amess: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the operation of (a) Schedule 1 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, (b) the Town and Country Planning Appeals (Determination by Inspectors) (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2000, (c) the Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Written Representations Procedure) (England) Regulations 2000 and (d) the Town and Country Planning (Hearings Procedure) (England) (Rules) 2000.

Yvette Cooper: The information is as follows.
	(a) Section 1 of and Schedule 1 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 dealt with the licensing of public entertainment outside Greater London. The provisions were repealed by Schedule 6 to the Licensing Act 2003.
	(b), (c), (d) These rules and regulations are part of a package of measures providing a useful framework to various planning and related appeals procedures. Their main purpose is to ensure that all the information, evidence and submissions needed to make a fully informed and timely appeal decision can be assembled in an orderly fashion to enable the appeal proceedings to operate smoothly. While they are generally operating satisfactorily, we are not complacent. There is still some room for further improvement, such as in complying with timetables for the production of proofs of evidence for inquiries and statements of common ground between the main parties and in providing realistic estimates of the time likely to be required to make submissions and the number of witnesses to be called. However, where a party fails to adhere to the timetables, there is power to disregard late representations. Moreover, if that failure is unreasonable and leads to another party incurring unnecessary expense, the power to award costs also provides an effective discipline in the case of hearings and inquiries. For its part, the Planning Inspectorate is actively managing improvements to its own performance in arranging hearing and inquiry dates in the face of a continuing high level and variety of casework which places conflicting demands on the available inspector resource.

Civil Service (Workforce Reductions)

Theresa Villiers: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what interim targets she has set for achieving (a) the agreed efficiency target for her Department and (b) the civil service work force reductions targets for (i) gross reductions in posts, (ii) net reductions in posts and (iii) relocations for her Department, as set out in the 2004 Spending Review; what the baseline figures are against which these interim targets are assessed; on what dates they will take effect; and by what dates these interim targets are intended to be met.

Richard Caborn: The great majority of the Department's spending is channelled through its NDPBs. Details of their expected efficiency savings are set out in the answer to PQ52919. The Department has a target to save 2.5 per cent. of its administrative spending, as follows:
	
		
			   £ million 
			  Admin spend Efficiency gain 
		
		
			 2004–05(65) 49 0 
			 2005–06 49 0 
			 2006–07 48 1 
			 2007–08 47 2 
		
	
	(65) Baseline.
	DCMS has a target to reduce its headcount by 27 by 2008, benchmarked against the number of staff and level of activities as carried out at April 2004. It is intended that these reductions will take place in three equal tranches as part of the natural turnover of staff.
	DCMS NDPBs have a target to relocate 600 posts outside London and the South East by 2010. Plans to relocate over 900 posts are currently being developed. The relocation of a total 560 posts from the Big Lottery Fund (300 posts to Birmingham and Newcastle, planned completion June 2006) and the Gambling Commission (260 posts to Birmingham, planned completion September 2007) has already been announced.

Departmental Staffing

Vincent Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people were employed by (a) the Royal Parks Agency and (b) the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in each of the last 12 months for which data is available; and how many and what percentage of posts were vacant in each month.

Richard Caborn: I refer the hon. Member to table A of the annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" which provides staff numbers in my Department and its agency. Civil service statistics are available in the House Library and at the following address on the Cabinet Office statistics website: http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/management/statistics/index.asp.
	The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Royal Parks Agency hold no data on vacant posts; each business unit has freedom at any time to create or cut individual jobs to meet its needs provided it does not exceed its headcount or budget allocation.

Departmental Staffing

Hugo Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many full-time staff are employed (a) by her Department and (b) by each of its executive agencies.

Richard Caborn: I refer the hon. Member to table A of the annual publication "Civil Service Statistics" which provides staff numbers in my department and its agency. Civil service statistics are available in the House Library and at the following address on the Cabinet Office Statistics website:
	http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/management/statistics/index.asp

Monuments and Statues

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding the Government have provided for the repair of monuments and statues in (a) Romford, (b) Havering and (c) Greater London in each of the last seven years.

James Purnell: Government funding for the repair of monuments and statues is available through several channels.
	English Heritage provides grant funding through its Historic Buildings, Monuments and Designed Landscapes Grant scheme and its War Memorials Grant scheme. Grant aid for the repair of monuments and statues in (a) Romford, (b) Havering and (c) Greater London in each of the last seven years has been:
	
		
			£ 
			  Romford Havering Greater London 
		
		
			 1999 nil nil 16,469 
			 2000 nil nil Nil 
			 2001 nil nil 10,000 
			 2002 nil nil Nil 
			 2003 nil nil 7,250 
			 2004 nil nil 5,000 
			 2005 nil nil 7,500 
			 2006 nil nil 10,000 
			 Total nil nil 56,219 
		
	
	In addition, English Heritage provides grant funding under its Historic Buildings, Monuments and Designed Landscapes Grant scheme for scheduled ancient monuments and grant aid in the last seven years for repairs to such monuments within Greater London (none of which were in Romford or Havering) has been:
	
		
			   £ 
			 Monument Grant Year 
		
		
			 Howbury Moated Site, Bexley 106,644 2000 
			 Conduit House, Greenwich 8,618 2001 
			 Morden Park Mound, Morden 3,490 2002 
			 Ivy Conduit, Kingston 3,354 2004 
			 Total 122,106  
		
	
	Several statues in central London are in the direct care of English Heritage and in the financial year 2005–06, English Heritage will have spent £214,983 on their maintenance. The information for the previous years is not readily available but the figure will be of the same order of magnitude.
	The National Heritage Memorial Fund has provided no funding for the repair of monuments and statues in Greater London in the period specified.
	In March 2005 the Chancellor announced the Memorials Grant scheme, which returns to charities and faith groups the equivalent of the VAT incurred in erecting and maintaining memorial structures. The scheme has been operational since November and funding of £5 million is available until 2008. On 16 February 2006, £4,980.55 was paid towards the renovation of a memorial in the City of London Cemetery in London E12. Currently, no payments have been made for structures in Romford or Havering under this scheme.

National Lottery

Julie Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the additionality principle that funding of public services should not be topped up by proceeds from National Lottery ticket sales.

Richard Caborn: We continue to follow the principle set out in our July 2003 policy statement
	"Lottery funding will not be allowed to become a substitute for funding that would normally fall to mainstream Government spending"
	a basic principle which has been expressed in slightly different ways in the past by successive Governments.

Television Licences

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the BBC on alternatives to the licence fee.

James Purnell: In the context of Charter Review, there has been a wide range of discussions with interested parties, including the BBC, to discuss alternatives to the licence fee. We confirmed that the BBC would continue to be funded by the licence fee for the duration of the next Charter period in the Green Paper, "A strong BBC, independent of government", published in March 2004.

Ambition Pilots

Tim Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the progress of the Ambition pilots for job placement; and what follow-up actions have been taken by (a) Jobcentre Plus and (b) other departmental agencies as a result of the pilots.

Margaret Hodge: The Ambition programme has demonstrated that working with industry and sector based partners to enhance employment opportunity for disadvantaged people has been very successful. The programme has met its aims of supporting people into employment. At the same time we have developed new approaches to training ensuring that the training better meets the customised needs of employers.
	Ambition Retail, IT and Construction have now all come to an end and the final Ambition Energy and Health courses will end in March. A report on the pilots "Ambition: identifying best practice for demand led approaches" GHK Consulting, DWP Research Report 264, 2005, is available in the Library. The lessons learned from the Ambition pilots will be embedded in successor programmes.
	We are currently in negotiation with partners in the Learning and Skills Council and the Energy and Utilities Sector Skills Council to develop plans for a successor programme within the energy and utilities sector. It is hoped that any developments in this sector can be applied into other occupational areas.

Benefit Claims Processing

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what percentage of benefit claimants used a paper-based method as their principal method of claiming benefits in each year since 1997.

James Plaskitt: All benefit claims are paper based with the exception of claims to state pension. Although it is possible to make benefit claims on-line, by telephone and face to face, a "hard copy" of the claim requires the signature of the applicant before the claim can be considered in the normal way.
	In August 2005 a rolling programme of transformation commenced which allows customers in three geographical locations (London, Dundee and Swansea) to make their claim to state pension over the telephone without the need to sign a claim form. 9,141 claims were made over the telephone between August 2005 and January 2006. This means that 98 per cent. of the 2005–06 state pension claims received involved a paper-based claim form.

Benefit Recipients (Bank Access)

Susan Kramer: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of people in receipt of benefit, including pensioners, who are not within a 30-minute public transport journey to a bank.

James Plaskitt: The Department has made no estimate of the number of customers who are not within a 30-minute public transport journey to a bank.
	There are a wide range of options available to people in receipt of benefit or pensions for collecting their money without travelling to their bank. For example they can get their money from one of 33,000 free cash machines or by using the "cashback" facility offered by many supermarkets and other retail outlets.
	In addition, most customers with bank accounts no longer have to acquire goods or services through the use of cash, with a very wide network of retailers accepting payment via debit cards, in person, by telephone or via the Internet.
	Also, many basic and normal bank accounts can be accessed at post offices and there are around 14,500 post offices within the network.

Benefits

Angus MacNeil: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people received housing benefit in Scotland in each year since 1995, broken down by local authority; and what total spending on housing benefit in Scotland has been since 1995.

James Plaskitt: The available information is in the following tables. Because of local authority boundary changes in 1995 and 1996, information for those years is given in separate tables.
	
		Housing benefit (HB) recipients in Scotland by local authority: August 1995 Thousand
		
			  Number 
		
		
			 Scotland 544.9 
			 Aberdeen 17.0 
			 Angus 6.8 
			 Annandale and Eskdale 2.5 
			 Argyll-Bute 5.4 
			 Badenoch 0.8 
			 Banff and Buchan 5.5 
			 Bearsden and Milngavie 0.9 
			 Berwickshire 1.3 
			 Caithness 2.1 
			 Clackmannan 4.5 
			 Clydebank 6.6 
			 Clydesdale 4.6 
			 Cumbernauld 2.9 
			 Cumbernauld (Dev C) 2.7 
			 Cumnock and Doon 5.2 
			 Cunninghame 13.7 
			 Dumbarton 7.2 
			 Dundee 23.1 
			 Dunfermline 10.5 
			 East Kilbride 1.4 
			 East Kilbride (Dev C) 4.7 
			 East Lothian 6.8 
			 Eastwood 1.3 
			 Edinburgh 42.8 
			 Ettrick and Lauderdale 2.3 
			 Falkirk 14.3 
			 Glasgow 124.5 
			 Glenrothes (Dev C) 3.1 
			 Gordon 2.9 
			 Hamilton 11.4 
			 Inverclyde 10.6 
			 Inverness 4.7 
			 Irvine (Dev C) 1.8 
			 Kilmarnock 8.4 
			 Kincardine and Deeside 1.7 
			 Kirkcaldy 14.0 
			 Kyle and Carrick 9.9 
			 Livingston (Dev C) 3.5 
			 Lochaber 1.5 
			 Midlothian 4.8 
			 Monklands 13.2 
			 Moray 5.6 
			 Motherwell 18.6 
			 Nairn 0.8 
			 Nithsdale 4.2 
			 North East Fife 3.5 
			 Orkney Isles 1.0 
			 Perth and Kinross 8.4 
			 Renfrew 21.1 
			 Ross and Cromarty 4.0 
			 Roxburgh 3.1 
			 Scottish Homes 30.3 
			 Shetland Isles 1.0 
			 Skye and Lochalsh 0.8 
			 Stewartry 1.5 
			 Stirling 6.8 
			 Strathkelvin 3.6 
			 Sutherland 1.0 
			 Tweeddale 0.9 
			 West Lothian 10.8 
			 Western Isles 1.7 
			 Wigtown 3.2 
		
	
	
		Housing benefit (HB) recipients in Scotland by local authority: August 1996 Thousand
		
			  Number 
		
		
			 Scotland 548.3 
			 Aberdeen 17.3 
			 Aberdeenshire 10.3 
			 Angus 7.2 
			 Argyll and Bute 6.7 
			 Clackmannanshire 4.6 
			 Cumbernauld Dev Corp 2.5 
			 Dumfries and Galloway 12.3 
			 Dundee 22.5 
			 East Ayrshire 13.6 
			 East Dunbartonshire 3.8 
			 East Lothian 7.6 
			 East Renfrewshire 3.7 
			 Edinburgh 42.7 
			 Falkirk 14.4 
			 Fife 30.6 
			 Glasgow 120.2 
			 Highland 16.3 
			 Inverclyde 10.5 
			 Irvine Dev Corp 1.7 
			 Livingstone Dev Corp 3.2 
			 Midlothian 5.9 
			 Moray 5.9 
			 North Ayrshire 13.8 
			 North Lanarkshire 37.3 
			 Orkney Islands 1.0 
			 Perth and Kinross 8.6 
			 Renfrewshire 18.6 
			 Scottish Borders 7.7 
			 Scottish Homes 24.1 
			 Shetland Islands 1.1 
			 South Ayrshire 9.7 
			 South Lanarkshire 30.5 
			 Stirling 6.9 
			 West Dunbartonshire 12.5 
			 West Lothian 11.3 
			 Western Isles 1.7 
		
	
	
		Housing benefit (HB) recipients in Scotland by local authority: each August 1997–2005 Thousand
		
			  1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
		
		
			 Scotland 532.0 515.1 504.8 479.2 457.6 448.2 438.4 450.8 440.5 
			 Aberdeen 16.7 15.7 16.1 15.8 15.4 15.4 15.4 16.0 15.4 
			 Aberdeenshire 10.1 9.8 9.6 9.3 9.3 9.5 9.6 10.2 10.2 
			 Angus 8.2 7.8 7.6 7.8 7.5 7.1 7.1 7.5 7.7 
			 Argyll and Bute 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.3 6.1 6.1 5.8 5.9 5.8 
			 Clackmannanshire 4.5 4.9 5.3 4.9 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 
			 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.3 
			 Dumfries and Galloway 12.2 11.9 11.6 10.8 10.6 10.4 10.1 10.7 10.6 
			 Dundee 21.7 22.9 21.4 20.7 19.1 19.3 17.8 18.5 18.2 
			 East Ayrshire 13.9 13.4 10.8 10.5 12.2 11.9 12.1 12.4 12.2 
			 East Dunbartonshire 3.5 3.8 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 
			 East Lothian 7.7 7.6 7.0 6.6 5.6 5.7 5.9 6.0 5.9 
			 East Renfrewshire 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.3 
			 Edinburgh 41.5 38.0 37.1 33.2 33.2 32.3 31.3 33.0 33.5 
			 Falkirk 14.5 15.1 14.4 13.7 13.0 13.0 12.6 12.8 12.4 
			 Fife 31.0 31.6 30.5 32.0 27.9 26.9 26.6 27.1 26.8 
			 Glasgow 113.7 109.3 109.2 102.5 98.5 97.2 100.2 98.3 91.8 
			 Highland 16.3 16.0 14.6 14.5 14.0 13.5 12.9 13.6 13.6 
			 Inverclyde 11.2 10.1 10.9 9.5 9.4 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 
			 Midlothian 6.1 5.9 5.9 5.6 5.4 5.1 5.1 5.2 4.9 
			 Moray 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.5 4.9 4.4 4.4 4.7 4.7 
			 North Ayrshire 14.3 14.0 14.3 14.0 14.0 13.4 12.9 13.7 13.9 
			 North Lanarkshire 37.7 37.0 37.7 34.5 33.6 33.8 28.6 33.4 33.0 
			 Orkney 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8  0.8 
			 Perth and Kinross 8.5 8.3 8.1 7.7 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.6 7.6 
			 Renfrewshire 18.8 19.6 20.4 19.5 18.4 17.7 15.8 16.9 16.5 
			 Scottish Borders 7.9 7.5 7.6 7.4 6.7 7.0 7.2 7.1 7.2 
			 Scottish Homes 19.4 12.7 9.4 7.0 3.2 n/a n/a n/a n/a 
			 Shetland 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 
			 South Ayrshire 9.9 7.6 8.7 8.5 8.7 8.6 8.5 8.6 8.6 
			 South Lanarkshire 30.3 30.9 30.0 28.3 27.5 27.5 27.0 26.3 25.3 
			 Stirling 6.5 6.3 6.1 5.7 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.3 5.2 
			 West Dunbartonshire 12.3 13.0 12.4 12.5 11.8 12.0 11.8 11.9 11.6 
			 West Lothian 14.4 15.1 14.7 13.6 13.1 12.7 12.7 13.2 13.1 
		
	
	n/a = not applicable.
	Notes:
	1. The data refers to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.
	2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100 and expressed in thousands.
	3. Figures for any non-responding authorities have been estimated.
	4. Housing benefit figures exclude any extended payment cases.
	5. Local authority boundaries in Scotland have changed since 1995.
	Source:
	Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock-count taken between August 1995 to August 2005.
	
		Housing benefit expenditure in Scotland £ million
		
			  Housing benefit and discretionary housing payments (nominal terms) Housing benefit and discretionary housing payments (real terms 2005–06 prices) 
		
		
			 1995–96 907 1,163 
			 1996–97 967 1,197 
			 1997–98 1,014 1,219 
			 1998–99 1,039 1,218 
			 1999–2000 1,054 1,211 
			 2000–01 1,073 1,218 
			 2001–02 1,118 1,238 
			 2002–03 1,243 1,334 
			 2003–04 1,150 1,202 
			 2004–05 1,188 1,217 
		
	
	Note:
	2004–05 figures are estimated outturn.
	Source:
	DWP Benefit expenditure tables.

Green Paper "A New Deal for Welfare"

Danny Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when an accessible version of the Green Paper, "A New Deal for Welfare: Empowering People to Work", will be published; and whether there will be an extension to the consultation deadline for those requiring the accessible version of the paper.

Margaret Hodge: holding answer 2 February 2006
	We launched our Welfare Reform Green Paper, "A New Deal for Welfare: Empowering People to Work", on 24 January. Since then, over 2,500 copies have been distributed.
	We are also producing alternative versions of the Green Paper—word, braille, audio, large print, easy-read and Welsh language. People can request copies of these via our email and telephone contact points. The braille, audio and large print versions have already been distributed, and we took delivery of the Welsh language version on 15 February.
	It does take time to prepare the easy read version in a properly accessible format, with appropriate illustrations. The first draft of that version has been approved and the final version will be with us on 27 February 2006. Given this delay, we will respond sensibly and sensitively to individuals who require additional time to make their response. We also have a telephone helpline to provide one-to-one advice to individuals and organisations in understanding our proposals.
	Ministers and officials worked closely with the stakeholder community over the past year in developing our proposals—we will continue to do so.

Incapacity Benefit

Adam Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the most common medical reasons why incapacity benefit claimants in Gravesham constituency are in receipt of the benefit.

Anne McGuire: The available information is in the table.
	
		Incapacity benefit (IB) severe disablement allowance (SDA) claimants in the Gravesham parliamentary constituency as at May 2005, broken down by diagnoses group
		
			  Number 
		
		
			 All Diagnoses 3,500 
			 Neoplasms 100 
			 Endocrine, Nutritional and Metabolic Diseases 100 
			 Mental and Behavioural Disorders 1,200 
			 Diseases of the Nervous System 200 
			 Diseases of the Circulatory System 200 
			 Diseases of the Respiratory System 100 
			 Diseases of the Digestive System 100 
			 Diseases of the Musculoskeletal system and Connective Tissue 700 
			 Symptoms, Signs and Abnormal Clinical and Laboratory findings, not elsewhere classified 500 
			 Injury, Poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes 200 
			 All other Diagnoses 200 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred. Totals may not sum due to rounding.
	2. "Claimant" figures include all IB and SDA, including IB credits only cases.
	3. All diagnoses are coded using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, published by the World Health Organisation.
	Source:
	DWP Information Directorate, Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study 100 per cent. data.

Incapacity Benefit

John Cummings: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many women in receipt of incapacity benefit in Easington constituency are aged (a) under 20, (b) 20 to 24, (c) 25 to 29, (d) 30 to 34, (e) 35 to 39, (f) 40 to 44, (g) 45 to 49, (h) 50 to 54, (i) 55 to 59 and (j) 60 to 64 years.

Anne McGuire: The available information is in the table.
	
		Female incapacity benefit (IB) and severe disablement allowance (SDA) claimants in the Easington parliamentary constituency; August 2005
		
			  Number 
		
		
			 All ages 4,100 
			 Under 20 100 
			 20 to 24 200 
			 25 to 29 200 
			 30 to 34 300 
			 35 to 39 400 
			 40 to 44 500 
			 45 to 49 600 
			 50 to 54 700 
			 55 to 59 900 
			 60 to 64 — 
			 65 and over 100 
		
	
	"—"=nil or negligible.
	Notes:
	1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred. Totals may not sum due to rounding.
	2. 'Claimant" figures include all IB and SDA, including IB credits only cases.
	Source:
	DWP Information Directorate, Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study 100 per cent. data.

National Pensions Savings Scheme

Philip Dunne: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has held with the Financial Services Authority on the proposed National Pensions Savings Scheme.

Stephen Timms: DWP officials have regular and contact with the FSA. The Government are considering the recommendations within the Pensions Commission's report which include the National Pensions Savings Scheme. The Government are committed to consulting with the public and key stakeholders on the key issues, as part of the national pensions debate. The Government plan to bring forward it's own proposals for reform in a White Paper in the spring. At this stage nothing has been ruled in and nothing has been ruled out. In developing these proposals the Government will take associated regulatory considerations into account.

Pensioners

Robert Flello: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners have had their income raised above the poverty level since 1997 in (a) Stoke-on-Trent South constituency and (b) the UK.

Stephen Timms: The seventh annual "Opportunity for all" report (Cm 6673) sets out the Government's strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion and reports progress against a range of indicators.
	(a) Information on the number of people over state pension age in low income is not available below regional level. The table gives estimates for the West Midlands.
	
		Numbe r of people in the West Midlands over state pension age in low income Million
		
			  Relative Low Income Absolute Low Income 
			  After housing costs Before housing costs After housing costs Before housing costs 
		
		
			 1995–96 to 1997–98 0.25 0.22 0.26 0.22 
			 2001–02 to 2003–04 0.23 0.24 0.11 0.15 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. Figures are provided using a three-year rolled average, as single-year estimates do not provide a robust guide to year-on-year changes. Hence, figures are not consistent with previously published single-year estimates and there may be differences in changes over time. In circumstances such as a change in trend, rolled averages will show less variation than single-year estimates.
	2. Table shows number of people over state pension age in millions rounded to the nearest 10 thousand.
	3. In this answer relative low income is defined as individuals living in households with incomes below 60 per cent. f the contemporary GB median. Absolute low income gives the numbers living in households below 60 per cent. of 1996–97 median income held constant in real terms.
	(b) Between 1996–97 and 2003–04 the number of people over state pension age in Great Britain who were in relative low income fell by 700,000, and the number in absolute low income fell by 1.9 million measured after housing costs. The table gives the number and percentage of people over state pension age living in households in relative and absolute low income.
	
		Number of people in Great Britain over state pension age in low income Million
		
			  Relative Low Income Absolute Low Income 
			  After housing costs Before housing costs After housing costs Before housing costs 
		
		
			 1995–96 to 1997–98 2.8 2.2 2.8 2.2 
			 2001–02 to 2003–04 2.0 2.2 0.9 1.1 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. Figures are for Great Britain—the Family Resources Survey did not cover Northern Ireland until 2002–03;
	2. In this answer relative low income is defined as individuals living in households with incomes below 60 per cent. of the contemporary median. Absolute low income gives the numbers living in households below 60 per cent. of 1996–97 median income held constant in real terms.
	3. The fall in the number of pensioners in relative low income after housing costs between 1996–97 and 2003–04 is 700,000—this does not match with the numbers in the table (2.8 million and 2.0 million) because of rounding.

Welfare Reform Green Paper

Jeremy Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the Green Paper on Welfare Reform, what proportion of the one million incapacity benefits recipients that he estimates can be returned to work over a decade he expects to be (a) new claimants and (b) existing claimants.

Margaret Hodge: We are currently working towards a public service agreement target to increase employment among disabled people and reduce the employment gap between those living with a disability and the rest of the population by 2008.
	We have now, as part of our overall goal of achieving 80 per cent. employment, added an aspiration to reduce by one million the number of people receiving incapacity benefits over 10 years. Our proposals for achieving this aspiration are outlined in the Welfare Reform Green Paper; "A new deal for welfare: Empowering people to work".
	We have not defined the target between new and existing claimants.

Working Age Benefit

David Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he has made an assessment of the merits of introducing a single working age benefit for all people of working age not in employment; and if he will make a statement.

Margaret Hodge: In the Green Paper: "A New Deal for Welfare: Empowering People to Work" we have said that there may be advantages in moving towards a single system of benefits for all people of working age. We shall be examining how we can move to a simpler, single system effectively and fairly while continuing to provide value for the taxpayer.

Advisory Committee on Pesticides

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the advice of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides that compulsory five metre buffer lanes to reduce the impact from pesticide spray drift are unnecessary.

Elliot Morley: The Government are currently considering all the recommendations in the report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) on "Crop Spraying and the Health of Residents and Bystanders" including the suggested "5m buffer zone". These deliberations will take account of the advice from scientific committees including the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and the Department of Health's Committee on Toxicity, Committee on Carcinogenicity and Committee on Mutagenicity. The Government aim to publish a response to the RCEP by the summer.

Air Quality

Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made towards bringing the standard of air quality in the parts of Denton and Reddish constituency designated as an air quality management area to within the guideline limits.

Ben Bradshaw: Local authorities have a duty under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 to review and assess the current, and likely future, air quality in their areas. Where local authorities consider that one or more of the nationally prescribed air quality objectives for each of the seven pollutants is unlikely to be met by the relevant deadline, they must declare an air quality management area (AQMA), covering the area where the problem is expected. These local authorities must then take action, along with other agencies and organisations, to work towards meeting the air quality objectives.
	Tameside MBC first declared AQMAs for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particles (PM 1 0 ) in July 2001 and these were superseded by declaration of a single AQMA in September 2005 for NO 2 and PM 1 0 which covered a number of major roads. Tameside and the other Greater Manchester local authorities produced a joint air quality action plan which was publicly consulted upon in June 2004; my Department also commented on the plan. Tameside are now implementing measures to work towards meeting the air quality objectives. Tameside submitted an action plan progress report in September 2005 which reported that they were on schedule in implementing the majority of their 31 measures and that progress had been made on key measures such as implementation of quality bus corridor measures.
	Greater Manchester authorities are now working closely with transport planners in finalising the new Local Transport Plan (LTP) which is due in March 2006. Including measures within the LTP should also help increase the capacity to deliver cleaner air within the AQMAs.
	The Government are also currently undertaking a review of the air quality strategy to identify potential new additional measures to move us closer to meeting the air quality objectives and generate cost-effective health benefits.

Compost Material

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to make a decision on whether compost material should be defined as a product rather than waste.

Ben Bradshaw: The definition of waste in force in the United Kingdom is the definition in article 1 (a) of the Waste Framework Directive (WFD). Whether or not a substance is discarded as waste, and when waste ceases to be waste, are matters which must be determined on the facts of the case and the interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has issued several judgments on the definition of waste which are binding on member states and their "competent authorities".
	The composting of waste is classified as a waste recovery operation under the WFD. This means that composting must be carried out under the terms of a waste management licence issued by, or a waste management licensing exemption registered with, the Environment Agency (England and Wales).
	The ECJ has ruled that
	"Whether [a substance] is waste, must be determined in the light of all the circumstances, regard being had to the aim of the directive and the need to ensure that its effectiveness is not undermined."
	In practice, this means that waste does not cease to be waste until it has undergone a complete recovery operation and has been fully recovered within the meaning of the WFD. A complete recovery operation is one which has the effect of transforming waste into a product which is wholly interchangeable with another product and requires no additional regulation or supervision beyond that applicable to the product which it is replacing. Waste has not undergone a complete recovery operation if, after the operation has been carried out, it continues to present a danger typical of waste (e.g. it continues to be contaminated).
	The Environment Agency considers that (a) source-segregated waste which, after composting meets the relevant tests, including the achievement of a recognised and suitable quality standard (e.g. BSI PAS 100), certainty of use and no risk of pollution of the environment or harm to human health, is likely to be fully recovered within the meaning of the WFD; and (b) mixed waste which is composted is likely to remain waste until it is used in a further recovery operation (e.g. land treatment resulting in agricultural benefit or ecological improvement) subject to control by the Agency under a licence or registered licensing exemption. These considerations are being taken into account in work currently being undertaken by the Environment Agency and the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) on the development of a quality protocol for waste composting.
	There is also now the prospect of similar work being undertaken at a European Union level following the publication, on 21 December 2005, of the European Commission's "Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste" together with a proposed revision of the WFD. The proposals are available on the Commission's website at http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/strategv.htm and include, in the draft revised WFD, a provision which would enable the adoption of environmental and quality criteria for specified waste streams. Where these criteria are met, the effect would be to deem that the recovery of the specified waste had been completed and that it had ceased to be waste. The Commission's "Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste" proposes that the waste streams addressed by this system should include compost.
	The Department supports the development of protocols at national level and advocates the development of similar work at a European Union level. A key objective of our doing so is to enable our competent authorities, and those engaged in the recovery of waste, to determine with a high degree of certainty the point at which waste has been fully recovered for the purposes of the WFD and has ceased to be waste.

Forestry Commission

Joan Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much Forestry Commission England spent on biodiversity work in each forest district in (a) 2003, (b) 2004 and (c) 2005; and how much it has budgeted for biodiversity work in each district for (i) 2006, (ii) 2007 and (iii) 2008.

Jim Knight: Total expenditure on conservation of natural heritage and enhancement of biodiversity on the public forest estate for the last two years and the current year's budget is given in the following table.
	The budget for 2006–07 and 2007–08 is being finalised and I will write to the hon. Member when this information is available. It is too early to predict the budget for 2008–09 which will be subject to the outcome of CSR07.
	
		Spending on natural heritage and enhancement of biodiversity £000
		
			  Actual Budget 
			 Forest District 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 
		
		
			 Sherwood and Lincolnshire 246 308 305 
			 East Anglia 132 170 231 
			 Northants 177 216 225 
			 Kielder 148 182 135 
			 North West England 425 435 542 
			 North York Moors 147 154 174 
			 South East England 275 272 249 
			 New Forest 1,213 1,394 1,330 
			 West Midlands 134 94 174 
			 Peninsula 380 362 272 
			 Forest of Dean 211 224 257

Green Space

Greg Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate her Department has made of the change in the area of privately owned urban green space over the last 10 years; and what assessment her Department has made of the impact of the change on biodiversity.

Jim Knight: holding answer 14 February 2006
	Land Use Change Statistics are published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The most recent results were published in November 2005, as "Land Use Change in England to 2004: Additional Tables". These are available at:
	http://www.odpm.gov.uk/pub/532/LandusechangestatisticsinEnglandto2004No20AAdditionalTables_id1161532.pdf
	These data show the amount of land being developed according to its past use. An average of 150 hectares a year changed from outdoor recreation to residential usage during the period 1992 to 2001. Of this, 130 hectares a year was within built-up areas. Information on whether the land involved is privately owned is not recorded, however.
	My Department has not made a direct assessment of the loss of such space on biodiversity to date. But initiatives such as the new planning policy statement 9 do establish clear national policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system.

Recycling

Diane Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department has taken to help local authorities to increase levels of recycling.

Ben Bradshaw: The Waste Implementation Programme (WIP) is a Defra programme designed to assist local authorities (LA's) achieve EC Landfill targets for Biodegradable Municipal Waste. The Programme offers LA's various toolkits and advice and aims to promote the Waste Hierarchy as set out in the Waste Strategy (Minimisation, Reuse, Recycle, Recovery, Landfill). Minimisation lies at the top of the tree with landfill at the bottom. Recycling plays an important part in the diversion process and as such LA's are encouraged to examine recycling possibilities, which enable them to meet their targets which in turn allows them to avoid penalties under the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS).
	WIP achieves this through a number of levers. For example WIP has recently run a series of Efficiency Roadshows designed to spread best practice (including in the recycling field) and to encourage LA's to consider the greater use of partnership working.
	From 2002–03 to 2005–06 the Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund has distributed over £275 million to local authorities across England to improve their waste minimisation, recycling and composting performance. This has been through a competitive process whereby bids have to be approved before the monies released. London authorities received £45.45 million from the overall pot through a scheme administered by London Waste Action.
	In 2005–06 there has been further financial help available to local authorities through the Waste Performance and Efficiency Grant. This is an un-ringfenced grant whereby the money can be spent on any service not just waste. £40 million was available in 2005–06 and this will rise to £105 million in 2006–07 and £110 million in 2007–08.
	PFI offers financial support to LA's for the development of long term waste processing infrastructure, such as Energy from Waste facilities. In the Spending Review (SR) 2002 (covering the period 2003–04 to 2005–06) Defra was allocated £355 million towards the funding of waste PFI projects. The SR 2004 (covering the period 2006–07 to 2008–09) allocated an additional £275 million of PFI credits for waste PFI projects, over and above the £355 million available from the 2002 Spending Review.
	WIP also encourages LA's to consider collaborations with the Community and Voluntary sectors who have recognised expertise in the reuse and recycling fields.
	The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) uses Defra funding to carry out a number of activities in the minimisation, reuse, and recycling sectors. One important area relates to Education and WRAP have run the very successful "Recycle Now" campaign which raises public awareness of the benefits of recycling. WRAP have also managed a Home Composting campaign which provides information on composting to LA's and the general public and offers LA's composting bins at reduced prices for distribution to householders.

Sewage Treatment

Graham Stuart: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many responses the Government received to the consultation document "A Draft Code of Practice on Odour Nuisance from Sewage Treatment Works".

Ben Bradshaw: The Department received forty-eight responses to the Consultation on the draft "Code of Practice and Local Authority Guide on Odour Nuisance from Sewage Treatment Works". The National Assembly for Wales conducted its own consultation exercise to which eight responses were received.

Waste Management

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what help is available to local authorities to find alternatives to landfill; and if she will make a statement.

Ben Bradshaw: The Government have put in place a three-year targeted local authority Waste Performance and Efficiency Grant totalling 260m. The Waste Performance and Efficiency Grant supports new and more efficient ways to deliver waste reduction and increase recycling and diversion from landfill. Local authorities will receive £45 million in 2005–06, £105 million in 2006–07 and £110 million in 2007–08.
	The Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund, also known as the "Challenge Fund", is also a key source of funding. The Challenge Fund is designed to support local authority projects that push waste management practices up the waste hierarchy. These include projects designed to minimise the amount of household waste generated, and those that provide more extensive facilities for re-use and recycling and composting. £45 million was made available for this financial year.
	Since March 2003, Defra's Local Authority Support Unit (LASU) has been on hand to bridge the gap between Central Government policy and the action required at local authority level to bring about the behavioural changes needed to meet the objectives of the Landfill Directive.
	In June 2004, all local authorities were invited to apply to the LASU for advice provided by specialist waste consultants to help them deal with specific local barriers preventing them from improving their recycling performance and also to help some local authorities plan for the introduction of the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS).
	The LASU has so far distributed over £3.5 million in grants and other support.
	The LASU has also put together a toolkit for local authorities to give them advice on best practice in areas such as:
	Creating recycling strategies
	Kerbside recycling
	Household waste recycling centres
	Collecting waste from blocks of flats and housing estates and
	Good practice on the collection of bulky goods (such as cookers, televisions and fridges etc).
	Defra's New Technologies Supporter programme provides free guidance, literature and training to local authorities and decision makers for the development of New Technologies for the diversion of Biodegradable Municipal Waste (BMW) from landfill. Alongside this the Waste Technology Data Centre gives the facts on how waste treatment technologies work, as well as how much they cost to build and maintain.
	Defra also funds the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) to provide an advisory service to local authorities on recycling and organics. This provides technical advice and training for local authorities looking to implement and improve collection systems for recyclable materials and organic wastes.

Burma

Vera Baird: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to India regarding the sale of British aircraft to Burma.

Kim Howells: The UK fully implements the EU embargo on exporting arms and military-related equipment to Burma. In this context, we requested further information from the Indian Government regarding a possible export of British manufactured aircraft to Burma.
	The Indian authorities informed us they intended to gift a small number of "Islander" aircraft to the Burmese navy, for humanitarian tasks on Burma's island territories. They stressed that these aircraft were entirely unarmed. The Indian Government took note of our concerns.

Cyprus

Hywel Francis: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress being made in the reunification of Cyprus.

Douglas Alexander: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recently visited Cyprus, Turkey and Greece to assess the prospects for resuming negotiations towards a comprehensive settlement and the reunification of the island. He encouraged all parties to take the necessary steps towards the removal of all obstacles to trade in the region, a settlement of the Cyprus problem and the normalisation of relations in all directions.
	The UN Secretary-General reported last November that progress towards a settlement had been "negligible at best". We believe the absence of dialogue between the two communities is the greatest obstacle to progress. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary urged the leaders of both communities to find the courage and flexibility to move forward. We are concerned that the passage of time is making a settlement harder to achieve. In this context, we welcome recent examples of practical co-operation between the two communities.

European Constitution

John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what (a) mechanisms have been put in place and (b) activities are taking place in relation to the period of reflection on the European Constitution called for by the Prime Minister on 30 May 2005; what initiatives are aimed at engaging the public; and what consultation has taken place.

Douglas Alexander: Information about UK Government activities—and the activities of other EU member states—during the period of reflection can be found in the "Interim report on the national debates during the reflection period on the future of Europe". This joint report by the UK and Austrian presidencies of the EU was placed in the Library of the House on 16 January 2006.

Gibraltar

Robert Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Gibraltar on protecting from destruction the Rosia Water Tanks on Gibraltar.

Douglas Alexander: The site of the Rosia Water Tanks falls within the scope of the "Defined Domestic Matters" where authority is devolved to the Government of Gibraltar. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not made any representations to the Government of Gibraltar on this matter.

Rwanda

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Rwanda regarding the security of genocide survivors.

Ian Pearson: The Government, through its embassy in Rwanda, has regular discussions with the Rwandan Government about security. The Rwandan Government is committed at the highest levels to protecting survivors from threats or violence. The Rwanda National Police has assured us that it investigates all allegations of crimes against genocide survivors and witnesses involved in genocide related "gacaca" trials. The "gacaca" criminal justice system requires that witnesses should be able to come forward in safety. It is therefore in the Government of Rwanda's interest to investigate all allegations of witness intimidation. However a full witness protection programme would be near impossible with over 750,000 cases.

Rwanda

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of reports that survivors of the Rwandan genocide are subject to violence and intimidation by genocidaires given amnesty.

Ian Pearson: There have been some reports that survivors of the Rwanda genocide have been violently targeted and intimidated by perpetrators of the genocide. But there is little evidence to suggest that those who were imprisoned because of their involvement in the genocide and have since been freed through the prisoner amnesty are particularly likely to carry out such attacks. The Rwandan National Police has assured us that any violent offence would be dealt with by the Rwandan justice system. The Rwandan Government is committed at the highest levels to protecting survivors and witnesses in the "gacaca" traditional justice process from threats or violence.

Rwanda

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the progress of the project of national reconciliation following the Rwandan genocide.

Ian Pearson: In the 12 years since the genocide, Rwanda has made impressive efforts at reconciliation and reconstruction. Reconciliation is central to government policy. The Rwanda National Unity and Reconciliation Commission works with different groups to educate the population and promote reconciliation. And the Rwanda Demobilisation and Reintegration Commission holds re-education with a strong reconciliation theme in camps for returnees from the Democratic Republic of Congo.
	Perhaps the greatest progress the Government of Rwanda has made to ensure national reconciliation has been to provide an environment of peace and security and by establishing the basis for economic development and poverty reduction. However, there are growing international concerns about increasing government charges of "divisionism" and "genocidal ideology" against individuals. These potentially impact on national and local reconciliation.

Visas

John Leech: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of visitor visa applications from (a) married and (b) unmarried men applying from (i) India, (ii) Pakistan and (iii) Bangladesh have been refused in each year since 1997.

Douglas Alexander: UKvisas does not break down their visit visa statistics by marital status and therefore cannot provide the information requested. However, UKvisas' annual statistics reports from financial year 2001–02 onwards are available online at www.ukvisas.gov.uk under "Entry Clearance Facts and Figures". The reports show the total number of visit visa applications received, issued and refused at each Visa Section globally.

Western Sahara

Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether previous EU-Morocco fisheries agreements have enabled EU vessels to have licences to fish in Saharawi waters.

Kim Howells: Under the European Community's fisheries agreement with Morocco that expired in 1999, licences provided to European vessels allowed activities "within the Moroccan fisheries zone under the sovereignty of jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Morocco".

Zimbabwe

Sally Keeble: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recent wave of arrests in Bulawayo and Harare in Zimbabwe.

Douglas Alexander: We have received reports of more than 400 people, mostly women, being arrested in Harare and Bulawayo, during peaceful demonstrations.
	This is further evidence of the lack of respect the Government of Zimbabwe has consistently shown in recent years for human rights. Rather than hearing the concerns their people have about poor governance, and the dire state of the economy, the Government of Zimbabwe continues to use draconian legislation and force to suppress any criticism.
	The Government condemns the arrests of those involved in the peaceful demonstration by "Women of Zimbabwe Arise". This included elderly women, children and students. Our ambassador, Dr Andrew Pocock, raised this with the Zimbabwean Minister for Foreign Affairs, Simbarashe Mumbengegwi, on 15 February.

Bank Accounts

Mark Hoban: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people did not have access to a bank account on (a) 31 December 2005 and (b) 31 December 1997.

Ivan Lewis: The most recent data available that allows comparison to be made of the number of households with no access to a bank account is the Family Resources Survey from 2002–03. This indicates that 8 per cent. of households in the United Kingdom had no bank account of any kind. This equated to 1.9 million households containing around 2.8 million adults. 17 per cent. of households in Northern Ireland had no bank account of any kind.
	In 1997–98 the Family Resources Survey was collected on a Great Britain basis, excluding Northern Ireland. 8 per cent. of households had no access to a bank account of any kind at that time.
	In December 2004, the Government and the banks agreed to work together towards the goal of halving the number of adults in households with no access to a bank account of any kind and of making significant progress within two years. The Financial Inclusion Taskforce has been asked to monitor progress and will report to Government in due course.

British Film Industry

Michael Jack: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the financial gain to the British film industry has been arising from tax relief's available to (a) British and (b) other film production in the UK in each year since 1997.

Dawn Primarolo: The tax costs of Sections 42 and 48 film tax relief are provided in the following table. These figures include the costs of substantial mis-use, which the Government acted to counter by anti-avoidance legislation in recent Finance Bills.
	The value of tax relief under section 42 and 48 is shared between filmmakers and investors. The Government does not collect data on how these costs are divided.
	New film tax relief's were announced in the 2005 pre-Budget report in order both to challenge avoidance activity, and to target support more directly at the UK film industry.
	
		
			£ million 
			  Section 42 relief Section 48 relief Total 
		
		
			 1997–98 5 5 10 
			 1998–99 10 40 50 
			 1999–2000 20 80 100 
			 2000–01 25 90 115 
			 2001–02 35 120 155 
			 2002–03 60 145 205 
			 2003–04 95 190 285 
			 2004–05 170 350 520 
			 2005–06 220 340 560 
		
	
	The government have also provided £448 million in direct funding to the UK film industry in the last ten years. This figure includes:
	£252 million National Lottery funding provided by the Arts Council between 1995 and 2001;
	£19 million provided to the British Screen Finance Group between 1996 and 2000; and
	£177 million national lottery funding provided by the UK Film council between 2000 and 2005.

EU Budget

Owen Paterson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the (a) gross and (b) net contributions the Government have made to the European Union Budget in each year from 1997 to 2005; and what contributions he expects it to make in each year from 2005 to 2013.

Ivan Lewis: Out-turn figures for UK gross, after taking account of the abatement, and net contributions to the EC Budget on a calendar year basis are published in the annual European Community Finances" White Paper, most recently on 23 June 2005 (Cm 6580). For ease of reference, the figures for 1997 to 2005 were:
	
		
			   £ million 
			  Gross contribution after abatement  Net contribution 
		
		
			 1997 6,258 1,597 
			 1998 8,712 4,597 
			 1999 7,117 3,638 
			 2000 8,433 4,192 
			 2001 4,819 1,389 
			 2002 6,340 3,138 
			 2003 7,407 3,682 
			 2004 7,302 3,008 
			 2005 8,911 3,604 
		
	
	Estates of the UK's gross, after abatement, and net contribution in 2006 will be included in the next European Community Finances" White Paper.
	For estimates of contributions from 2007 to 2013, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) on 31 January 2006, Official Report, column 399W.

Migration

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people migrated to the UK from each of the (a) British overseas territories and (b) Commonwealth nations in each of the last seven years.

John Healey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician who has been asked to reply.
	Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated 27 February 2006
	As National Statistician I have been As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about how many people migrated to the UK from each of the (a) British Overseas Territories and (b) Commonwealth nations in each of the last seven years. (53789)
	The Office for National Statistics (ONS) produces estimates of Total International Migration (TIM). These are based mainly on data from the International Passenger Survey (IPS), which is supplemented with data on flows to and from the Republic of Ireland. Other data sources used to calculate TIM allow for adjustments of asylum seekers and their dependants not counted by the IPS and for switchers (people who change their intentions and, therefore, their migratory status). However, a detailed analysis on individual countries is only possible on IPS data alone, because of the characteristics of the other data sources.
	The latest available IPS estimates of migration are for the annual period 2004. Where reliable data are available, estimates of inflows of residents from British Overseas Territories and Commonwealth countries for each year from 1998 to 2004 are provided in attached table 1. Where reliable estimates are unavailable due to small sample sizes, British Overseas Territories and Commonwealth countries have been grouped.
	
		International migration, estimates from the international passenger survey annual data and seven years grouped, 1998–2004 inflow (immigration to the UK) country of last or next residence  United Kingdom (thousands)
		
			  Estimate(82) 
			  1998–2004 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 
		
		
			 British Overseas Territories (BOTs)(83) 10.2 (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— 
			  
			 All Commonwealth(84) 1188.5 132.3 151.1 156.7 169.8 156.5 181.7 240.4 
			 Australia 280.3 38.8 40.4 36.0 51.9 37.2 37.3 38.8 
			 Canada 58.0 9.5 6.1 8.8 5.7 7.3 12.8 7.8 
			 New Zealand 107.5 16.7 17.3 19.4 16.7 11.9 12.8 12.7 
			 South Africa 173.4 19.8 28.4 21.2 18.2 24.6 25.5 35.7 
			  
			 Other African Commonwealth of which:- 176.4 14.3 17.8 20.0 23.4 27.1 30.9 42.9 
			 Kenya 22.8 (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— 
			 Uganda 6.7 (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— 
			 Zimbabwe 38.1 (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— 
			 Ghana 20.4 (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— 
			 Nigeria 27.4 (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— 
			  
			 Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka of which:- 200.0 11.7 17.4 22.8 23.4 28.5 39.1 57.1 
			 Bangladesh 31.7 (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— 
			 India 145.1 (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— 
			 Sri Lanka 23.3 (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— 
			 Pakistan 82.2 6.7 8.2 10.8 13.3 6.7 10.2 26.4 
			  
			 Caribbean Commonwealth of which:- 25.6 4.1 4.2 1.6 2.7 3.9 3.7 5.3 
			 Jamaica 5.6 (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— 
			 Trinidad and Tobago 4.8 (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— 
			 Caribbean Commonwealth (excl BOTs) 18.2 (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— 
			 Caribbean Commonwealth (BOTs) 7.4 (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— 
			  
			 Other Commonwealth of which:- 85.1 10.7 11.3 16.2 14.6 9.4 9.4 13.6 
			 Brunei 3.1 (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— 
			 Malaysia 39.2 (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— 
			 Singapore 24.4 (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— 
			 Cyprus 10.8 (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— 
			 Other Commonwealth (excl BOTs) 82.3 (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— 
			 Other Commonwealth (BOTs) 2.7 (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— (85)— 
		
	
	(82)Estimate is based on migrant inflows captured from the International Passenger Survey (IPS). All estimates are subject to margins or error since they are derived from a sample survey.
	(83)BOTs are included in All Commonwealth.
	(84)Figures for all years include Malta and Cyprus in the Commonwealth.
	(85)Reliable estimate is unavailable for individual year; data have been grouped to produce more reliable estimates for 1998–2004.
	Notes:
	1.A small weighting adjustment has been applied to IPS data for 1998. This reflects the estimated effect of applying the weighting improvements made to IPS data from 1999 onwards.
	2.As a result of a change in our processing system there may be slight differences in our historical tables for 1999–2003.
	Source:
	Office for National Statistics

Population (Chorley)

Lindsay Hoyle: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the population of each ward in Chorley borough council.

John Healey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
	Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated 27 February 2006
	As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question regarding estimates of the population of each ward in Chorley Borough Council. (52617)
	The most recent population estimates for wards are for mid-2002. The estimates for wards in Chorley are given in the attached table. The closest available geography to current electoral wards, for which population estimates are available, is Census Area Statistics (GAS) wards. This geography was created for outputs from the 2001 Census and is based mainly on 2003 electoral wards. The CAS ward level population estimates have been published with the status of experimental statistics". Therefore, the estimates, and figures towed from them, should be treated with some care. The margin of confidence for population estimates is proportionately larger at ward level than at local authority level.
	
		Mid-2002 ward population for Chorley
		
			 Ward name Persons 
		
		
			 Adlington and Anderton 6,500 
			 Astley and Buckshaw 3,600 
			 Brindle and Hoghton 2,200 
			 Chisnall 4,000 
			 Chorley East 6,500 
			 Chorley North East 6,800 
			 Chorley North West 6,100 
			 Choriey South East 6,000 
			 Chorley South West 6,600 
			 Clayton-le-Woods and Whittle-le-Woods 6,900 
			 Clayton-le-Woods North 6,900 
			 Clayton-le-Woods West and Cuerden 4,400 
			 Coppull 6,500 
			 Eccleston and Mawdesley 6,100 
			 Euxton North 4,200 
			 Euxton South 4,100 
			 Heath Charnock and Rivington 2,200 
			 Lostock 5,500 
			 Pennine 2,200 
			 Wheelton and Withnell 4,200 
		
	
	Notes:
	1.Figures are consistent with the published mid-2002 local authority estimate for Chorley (September 2004 revision).
	2.Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and may not sum to the published mid-2002 estimate for Chorley.
	Source:
	Office for National Statistics.

Population (Tamworth)

Brian Jenkins: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the current population of each ward in the Tamworth constituency based on (a) the 2001 census, (b) electoral rolls and (c) health service users; and what projections he has made for the next five years.

John Healey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician who has been asked to reply.
	Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated 27 February 2006
	As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding the estimate of the current population of each ward in the Tamworth constituency based on (a) the 2001 Census, (b) electoral rolls and (c) health service users; and what projections have been made for the next five years. (53447)
	The table attached provides the information you have requested. The most recent population estimates for wards are for mid-2002. The closest available geography to current electoral wards for which population estimates are available, is Census Area Statistics (CAS) wards. This geography was created for outputs from the 2001 Census and is based mainly on 2003 electoral wards The CAS ward level population estimates have been published with the status of experimental statistics". Therefore, the estimates, and figures derived from them, should be treated with some care.
	The table contains CAS ward electorate counts for December 2002 and 2004. The ward electorate counts are for parliamentary electors, including attainers.
	The 2002 electorate counts are given for comparison with the population estimates, the latest available electorate counts are for 2004. It should be noted that the number of people eligible to vote is not the same as the resident population aged 18 and over. There are numerous reasons for this. For example not everyone who is usually resident is entitled to vote (foreign citizens from outside of the EU and Commonwealth, prisoners, etc. are not eligible), some people do not register to vote and people who have more than one address may register in more than one place. Further, there is inevitably some double counting of the registered electorate as electoral registration officers vary in how quickly they remove people from the registers after they have moved away from an area or after they have died. These factors have a differential impact from area to area.
	Patient register figures for July 2002 and July 2004 are included in the table. The 2002 patient register figures are given for comparison with the population estimates, the latest available patient register counts are for 2004.
	It should be noted that patient register counts differ from estimates of the usually resident population for a number of reasons. Patient registers include people who are in the country for at least three months, whereas population estimates are based on a usual residence definition requiring a stay of 12 months or more. The patient registers exclude individuals who are ineligible to be registered with a GP. People may be on a patient register after having left the country and not deregistered with their GP; similarly people may have moved to another area and not re-registered. Some patients may have more than one NHS number e.g. they may have been issued a temporary number for a short period. Again, these factors have a differentia impact from place to place.
	The Office for National Statistics does not produce projections of population at ward level.
	
		CAS Wards in Tamworth Parliamentary Constituency: Population Estimates, Electorate counts, and Patient Register counts
		
			 Ward name Population Estimate Mid-2002 Electorate December 2002 Electorate December 2004 Patient Register July 2002 Patient Register July 2004 
		
		
			 Bourne Vale 2,000 1,394 1,429 1,787 1,825 
			 Fazeley 4,500 3,611 3,678 4,676 4,763 
			 Little Aston 2,800 2,429 2,394 2,872 2,899 
			 Mease and Tame 3,400 2,816 2,901 3,399 3,553 
			 Shenstone 3,200 2,620 2,610 3,296 3,344 
			 Stonnall 1,500 1,228 1,240 1,506 1,544 
			 Amington 8,200 6,049 6,097 8,423 8,516 
			 Belgrave 7,500 5,528 5,526 7,888 7,712 
			 Bolehall 6,900 5,446 5,454 7,100 7,019 
			 Castle 6,900 5,517 5,558 6,805 6,985 
			 Glascote 8,300 5,764 5,818 8,702 8,573 
			 Mercian 6,700 5,373 5,390 6,977 6,939 
			 Spital 6,500 5,263 5,422 6,870 7,011 
			 Stonydelph 7,900 5,759 5,827 7,975 8,098 
			 Trinity 7,500 5,767 5,881 7,351 7,677 
			 Wilnecote 8,000 5,979 6,269 8,103 8,271 
		
	
	Notes:
	1.The mid-2002 ward population estimates are consistent with the published mid-2002 local authority estimates (September 2004 revisions), and have been rounded to the nearest hundred.
	2.The electorate counts are taken from the statutory RPF 29 returns.
	Source:
	Office for National Statistics

Population Growth

Lindsay Hoyle: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the population of (a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley constituency; and what assessment he has made of the likely population growth in each of the next 10 years.

John Healey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
	Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated 27 February 2006
	As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning population estimates and projections for Lancashire and for the Chorley constituency. (52616)
	The Office for National Statistics does not currently produce mid-year population estimates or projections on parliamentary constituency boundaries. However, in the case of Chorley, the parliamentary constituency currently has the same boundaries as Chorley borough council and so can be provided.
	The most recent set of population projections for England are 2003-based and use local trends in births, deaths and migration over the reference period 1999 to 2003 to formulate assumptions on levels of fertility, mortality and migration for future years.
	The 2004 mid year estimate and 2003-based subnational population projections for Lancashire and for Chorley are shown in the attached table.
	
		Table 1: Mid-year population estimates and 2003-based subnational population projections Lancashire and Chorley Thousand
		
			  Lancashire Chorley 
			  Population Change Population Change 
		
		
			 Mid-year population estimate 
			 2004 1,152.0 — 103.0 — 
			  
			 Population projections 
			 2005 1,153.7 — 103.3 — 
			 2006 1,157.2 +3.5 103.9 +0.6 
			 2007 1,160.9 +3.7 104.6 +0.6 
			 2008 1,164.4 +3.6 105.2 +0.6 
			 2009 1,168.0 +3.5 105.8 +0.6 
			 2010 1,171.5 +3.6 106.5 +0.6 
			 2011 1,175.1 +3.6 107.1 +0.6 
			 2012 1,178.7 +3.6 107.8 +0.6 
			 2013 1,182.4 +3.7 108.4 +0.6 
			 2014 1,186.1 +3.7 109.0 +0.7 
			 2015 1,189.9 +3.8 109.7 +0.6 
			 2016 1,193.7 +3.8 110.3 +0.6 
		
	
	Note:
	The population projections shown in this table are taken from the 2003-based subnational population projections, the latest set of projections currently available Therefore they may not be consistent with the 2004 mid-year estimate presented in the first row.
	Source:
	Office for National Statistics

Tax Credits

John Randall: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have been in receipt of the incorrect level of tax credit in (a) Uxbridge and (b) the London borough of Hillingdon in each year since tax credits were introduced; what assessment he has made of the number of these who could not have been reasonably expected to know that a mistake had been made; and if he will make a statement.

Dawn Primarolo: Further to my answer my colleague, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Lewis), gave the hon. Gentleman on 7 February 2006, Official Report, column 1127W, the information requested is not available in the format requested.

Tax Credits

John Randall: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many awards for (a) child and (b) working tax credit there were in the constituency of Uxbridge in (i)2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05; how many awards were (A)underpaid and (B) overpaid at (1) 5 April 2004 and (2) 5 April 2005; and what the total amounts were in each case.

Dawn Primarolo: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) on 10 October 2005, Official Report, column 321W.
	Estimates for 2004–05 of the numbers of in-work families with tax credits awards, including information on overpayments and underpayments by constituency, based on final family circumstances and incomes for 2004–05 are due to be published in May 2006.

Business Start-ups

Peter Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the answer of 29 November 2005, Official Report, column 372W, on business start-ups, how much was given in each of the last four years in each Belfast constituency.

Angela Smith: The table presents the amount of assistance offered to new business start-ups, by Invest NI, during each of the last three and half years, analysed by each Belfast parliamentary constituency.
	
		
			  £000 
			 Parliamentary constituency 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06(90) Total 
		
		
			 Belfast East 419.5 211.7 218.9 26.3 876.3 
			 Belfast North 106.7 156.8 192.3 37.5 493.2 
			 Belfast South 434.6 472.1 1,648.8 98.0 2,653.4 
			 Belfast West 193.3 202.3 412.1 28.1 835.7 
			 Total 1,154.0 1,042.8 2,472.0 189.7 4,858.5 
		
	
	(90)2005–06 provisional information to September 2005 only.
	Note:
	The figures in the table may not add due to rounding.

Gaelic/Ulster Scots

David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public money has been made available to support (a) the Gaelic language and (b) Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years.

David Hanson: The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DGAL) jointly funds the Ulster-Scots Agency and Foras na Gaeilge, the Irish Language Agency. The Ulster-Scots Agency has a statutory remit to promote Ulster-Scots language and culture. Foras na Gaeilge has a statutory remit to promote the Irish language.
	The budgets allocated to the Ulster-Scots Agency and Foras na Gaeilge by DCAL since 2000 are detailed in the following table.
	
		
			   £ million 
			 Budget (STG) Foras na Gaeilge (Irish Language Agency) Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch (Ulster-Scots Agency) 
		
		
			 2000 1.80 0.5 
			 2001 2.53 0.97 
			 2002 2.64 1.07 
			 2003 2.850 1.155 
			 2004 3.225 1.338 
			 2005 3.242 1.357 
			 2006 3.485 1.610 
		
	
	These figures are based on the calendar year.
	The funding for the Irish Language Broadcasting fund and Ulster-Scots Academy for 2005–06 year to 15 February 2006 is detailed in the following table.
	
		
			  £ 
		
		
			 Irish Language Broadcast Fund 12,518,680 
			 Ulster Scots Academy 86,648 
		
	
	Funding is also available from departmental mainstream programmes for projects, which may have an Irish or Ulster-Scots language or culture dimension, which cannot be separated from the primary funding objectives.

General Practitioners

Gregory Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many GPs are practising in Northern Ireland; and how many were found guilty of inappropriate behaviour towards their patients in each of the last five years.

Shaun Woodward: The information is as follows.
	(a) The number of GP's practising in Northern Ireland for each of the last five years is given in the following table.
	
		Number of General Practitioners practising in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years
		
			 Date Headcount 
		
		
			 February 2006 1,091 
			 October 2005 1,084 
			 October 2004 1,078 
			 November 2003 1,076 
			 October 2002 1,076 
		
	
	Source:
	Central Service Agency
	(b) The General Medical Council (GMC), through the fitness to practice panels, investigates reports of inappropriate behaviour. They have identified one General Practitioner in Northern Ireland who was investigated and found guilty of inappropriate behaviour towards their patients in the last five years. The GP in question was erased from the GMC register in 2005. However, the registered address that doctors must maintain with the GMC is not necessarily their place of practice so, although it is unlikely that there have been other cases, the possibility exists.

Housing

Peter Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to free up under-occupied housing executive and housing association homes in Northern Ireland.

David Hanson: In order, to maximise the opportunities for reducing under-occupation the Common Selection Scheme (CSS) facilitates those tenants who are under-occupying to voluntarily apply for a transfer. Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) or Housing Association tenants choosing to move are awarded ten points for each bedroom in their existing property in excess of the tenant's needs, up to a maximum of 30 points.
	Additionally, the CSS allows NIHE or Housing Association tenants to be offered a transfer if the resulting vacancy can facilitate the best use of stock through the housing of an applicant (or other tenant) in greater need for that particular size of accommodation.
	The need for action to address under occupation is most likely to be considered in circumstances where it is necessary to relieve housing stress and to be most effective in areas of low demand. Where social landlords feel that action is possible they will need to balance arrange of issues such as the availability of stock to match the needs of those tenants who do wish to move, polices aimed at helping people live in the community (Care in the Community and Lifetime homes), the effects on letability and the creation of sustainable communities.

Police

Mark Durkan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements there are for monitoring membership of (a) loyal orders and (b) the Freemasons in the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

Shaun Woodward: The chief constable is under a statutory obligation to require each police officer to inform him of any notifiable membership in accordance with Section 51(5) of the Police (NI) Act 2000, or indeed if he believes he has no notifiable membership, of that belief. Section 51(2) makes provision for the chief constable to give guidance to officers whose membership of certain organisations may be regarded as affecting their impartiality. This guidance provides a list of organisations for which membership must be notified.

Police

Mark Durkan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been externally recruited to (a) the Police Service of Northern Ireland and (b) the Royal Ulster Constabulary in each of the last 10 years, broken down by community background.

Shaun Woodward: The information is set out in the following tables:
	
		Police officers Number
		
			  Year Protestant Catholic Not determined Total 
		
		
			 RUC 1996 191 40 21 252 
			 RUC 1997 463 63 30 556 
			 RUC 1998 242 30 28 300 
			 RUC 1999 206 26 11 243 
			 RUC 2000 31 4 1 36 
			 PSNI 2001 51 54 1 106 
			 PSNI 2002 232 244 3 479 
			 PSNI 2003 221 224 4 449 
			 PSNI 2004 422 305 7 734 
			 PSNI 2005 244 234 5 483 
			 Total — 2,303 1,224 111 3,638 
		
	
	
		Civilian staff Number
		
			  Protestant Catholic Not determined Total 
		
		
			 1996 58 20 25 103 
			 1997 71 6 10 87 
			 1998 46 13 3 62 
			 1999 208 47 14 269 
			 2000 199 36 8 243 
			 2001 255 46 16 317 
			 2002 67 54 6 127 
			 2003 75 60 0 135 
			 2004 64 30 4 98 
			 2005 50 26 2 78 
			 Total 1,093 338 88 1,519 
			 Grand total3,396 1,562 199 5,157

Post-16 Education

Peter Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the staying-on rates were for 16 year olds in full time education in each education board in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years.

Angela Smith: The requested information is as follows:
	
		Percentage of 16-year-olds in full-time education by education and library board (ELB)
		
			 ELB area 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 
		
		
			 Belfast 57 57 59 63 73 
			 Western 64 65 66 70 74 
			 North Eastern 63 63 66 67 64 
			 South Eastern 65 66 69 68 74 
			 Southern 68 67 68 68 72 
			 NI total 66 66 68 70 73 
		
	
	Notes:
	1.Age at the beginning of each academic year.
	2.Excludes pupils in special and independent schools, and trainees on Jobskills courses.
	3.The small proportion of young people for whom home postcode data was missing has not been assigned to an ELB area. The staying-on rates for each ELB area are therefore slightly undercounted.

Prison Education

Peter Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much education provision in prison facilities cost in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years, broken down by prison facility.

Shaun Woodward: The expenditure by the Northern Ireland Prison Service to provide education in each of the last full five financial years was:
	
		
			£000 
			  Maghaberry Magilligan Hydebank Wood YOC 
		
		
			 2000–01 356 160 288 
			 2001–02 404 167 223 
			 2002–03 668 257 237 
			 2003–04 655 275 251 
			 2004–05 728 314 313 
		
	
	In addition to the above expenditure, some courses at HMP Magilligan are funded by the Department of Education and Learning and provided by local colleges.

Prisoner Statistics

Lady Hermon: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of (a) female and (b) male prisoners in Northern Ireland have declared themselves on committal to be from (i)Great Britain, (ii) Northern Ireland, (iii) the Republic of Ireland and (iv) other places.

Shaun Woodward: On 15 February 2006, the Northern Ireland Prison Service had a total population of 1,367 consisting of (a) 37 females and (b) 1,330 males.
	A breakdown of declared country of residence on committal is detailed as follows.
	
		
			 Committal declaration Female Percentage of female population Male Percentage of male population 
		
		
			 Great Britain 11 29.73 123 9.24 
			 Northern Ireland 17 45.95 1,093 82.18 
			 Republic of Ireland 8 21.62 80 6.02 
			 Other 1 2.70 34 2.56 
			 Total population 37 100 1,330 100 
		
	
	Note:
	These figures exclude immigration detainees as these persons are not prisoners under the terms of the Prison Act 1953. Also excluded, are those prisoners who are unlawfully at large as daily population figures do not include such prisoners.

Racial Crimes

Mark Durkan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many incidents recorded as racial crimes by the Police Service of Northern Ireland have led to (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions in each of the last five years.

Shaun Woodward: The following table outlines the number of racially motivated crimes cleared by the police in 2004–05 (the first financial year for which data is available) and for the current financial year up until 31 January 2006. A breakdown by clearance type is provided which includes the number of crimes cleared by way of a charge or summons.
	
		
			   Crime clearance method  1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 1 April 2005 to 31 January 2006(103) (part year) 
		
		
			 Charge/ Summons 59 68 
			 Caution/informed warning  (including juvenile) 11 5 
			 No further police action(102) 31 41 
			 Total crimes cleared 101 114 
		
	
	(102)Includes cases where complainant declined to prosecute, where the suspected offender is under the age of criminal responsibility or has died.
	(103)Figures for 1 April 2005–31 January 2006 are provisional and may be subject to revision.
	It is not possible to provide figures for convictions in respect of racially motivated crimes. This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Special Schools

David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many special schools there are in Northern Ireland; for how many pupils each school was built; how many pupils were on the roll of each special school in each of the last 10 years; and how far the pupil who lives the furthest from each special school has to travel to school.

Angela Smith: There are currently 45 special schools in Northern Ireland.
	Unfortunately, due to the age of a number of the special schools in Northern Ireland and that prior to the 1986 Education and Libraries Order (NI) the majority of special schools were built and controlled by the former Department of Health and Social Services, information is not readily available on the number of pupils each school was built for.
	
		Enrolments at current special schools in Northern Ireland, 1996–97 to 2005–06 Pupils
		
			 School name 1996–97 1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000 2000–01 
		
		
			 Cedar Lodge Special School 152 152 149 147 145 
			 Fleming Fulton Special School 168 170 165 163 167 
			 Harberton Special School 192 190 202 193 182 
			 Mitchell House Special School 71 76 78 73 77 
			 Greenwood House Assessment Centre 57 55 56 54 59 
			 Park Education Resource Centre 134 131 120 104 101 
			 Glenveagh Special School 154 149 145 160 166 
			 Oakwood Special School 77 93 92 93 94 
			 Clarawood Special School 33 34 32 9 9 
			 St. Francis de Sales Special School 24 21 24 24 24 
			 St. Gerard's Resource Education Centre 243 229 227 217 212 
			 Limegrove School 89 101 91 86 93 
			 Belmont House Special School 230 219 222 208 201 
			 Erne Special School 136 133 134 131 132 
			 Foyleview Special School 107 108 110 108 107 
			 Glasvey Special School 35 32 37 40 38 
			 Knockavoe School and Resource Centre 41 44 41 46 45 
			 Elmbrook Special School (108)— 53 54 50 48 
			 Arvalee School and Resource Centre (108)— (108)— (108)— (108)— (108)— 
			 Rosstulla Special School 140 151 156 159 158 
			 Dunfane Special School 144 142 151 149 149 
			 Beechgrove Special School 23 25 24 20 20 
			 Hill Croft Special School 73 74 75 72 73 
			 Loughan Special School 67 73 69 75 69 
			 Sandelford Special School 94 99 100 103 110 
			 Roddens Vale Special School 55 54 60 57 63 
			 Thornfield Special School 78 82 80 78 80 
			 Kilronan Special School 78 81 79 80 79 
			 Riverside Special School (108)— (108)— (108)— 40 46 
			 Jordanstown Special School 119 117 106 114 118 
			 Beechlawn Special School 255 246 247 252 251 
			 Killard House Special School 204 201 194 178 190 
			 Ardmore House Special School 44 21 43 40 46 
			 Brookfield Special School 114 114 115 110 123 
			 Longstone Special School 189 200 196 200 199 
			 Parkview Special School 111 109 118 123 124 
			 Knockevin Special School 88 89 91 93 92 
			 Tor Bank Special School 141 141 142 143 138 
			 Clifton Special School 95 93 98 99 100 
			 Lakewood Special School(109) n/a n/a n/a 22 20 
			 Rathfriland Hill Special School 92 87 86 93 91 
			 Donard Special School 39 41 39 38 38 
			 Ceara Special School 50 48 48 49 58 
			 Sperrinview Special School 44 48 50 57 56 
			 Lisanally Special School 59 59 65 67 71 
		
	
	
		Pupils
		
			 School name 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 
		
		
			 Cedar Lodge Special School 138 146 135 137 141 
			 Fleming Fulton Special School 164 160 154 150 145 
			 Harberton Special School 194 190 208 196 203 
			 Mitchell House Special School 74 77 81 72 64 
			 Greenwood House Assessment Centre 54 60 60 55 55 
			 Park Education Resource Centre 91 91 96 114 107 
			 Glenveagh Special School 167 173 174 175 187 
			 Oakwood Special School 106 99 95 100 97 
			 Clarawood Special School 11 12 11 6 6 
			 St. Francis de Sales Special School 24 23 20 25 28 
			 St. Gerard's Resource Education Centre 223 216 205 205 215 
			 Limegrove School 83 87 91 80 67 
			 Belmont House Special School 182 181 188 193 179 
			 Erne Special School 131 123 132 123 108 
			 Foyleview Special School 119 118 115 111 111 
			 Glasvey Special School 40 41 36 33 30 
			 Knockavoe School and Resource Centre 42 41 40 42 53 
			 Elmbrook Special School 51 57 55 56 58 
			 Arvalee School and Resource Centre (108)— (108)— (108)— 148 142 
			 Rosstulla Special School 156 158 150 160 161 
			 Dunfane Special School 157 152 162 151 149 
			 Beechgrove Special School 21 20 19 19 23 
			 Hill Croft Special School 74 79 83 80 81 
			 Loughan Special School 76 73 76 75 77 
			 Sandelford Special School 117 124 134 132 144 
			 Roddens Vale Special School 67 66 70 71 78 
			 Thornfield Special School 81 81 88 92 89 
			 Kilronan Special School 80 80 79 77 75 
			 Riverside Special School 48 49 48 57 60 
			 Jordanstown Special School 104 94 91 86 73 
			 Beechlawn Special School 255 277 277 256 243 
			 Killard House Special School 180 186 185 184 171 
			 Ardmore House Special School 31 25 26 28 10 
			 Brookfield Special School 123 117 123 111 111 
			 Longstone Special School 203 201 190 198 187 
			 Parkview Special School 131 134 134 128 135 
			 Knockevin Special School 87 87 87 89 82 
			 Tor Bank Special School 139 132 132 127 126 
			 Clifton Special School 100 106 109 112 112 
			 Lakewood Special School(109) 62 25 26 24 22 
			 Rathfriland Hill Special School 96 99 91 95 95 
			 Donard Special School 38 42 46 41 41 
			 Ceara Special School 69 78 81 84 91 
			 Sperrinview Special School 64 70 71 69 71 
			 Lisanally Special School 82 95 97 102 96 
		
	
	(108)Means not available. The school was not open at that time.
	(109)This school was not part of the education sector prior to September 1999.
	The furthest distance that a pupil travels to each school is not readily available. However, the greatest distance that any pupil living in each of the board areas has to travel in order to attend an appropriate special school is as follows:
	BELB—24 total miles (12 in each direction), Belfast to Hillsborough (Beechlawn School)
	NEELB—120 miles (60 in each direction), Ballycastle to Rostulla School in Newtownabbey.
	SEELB—60 miles (30 in each direction), Kilcoo to Lisburn, Downpatrick to Jordanstown, Newcastle to Fleming Fulton, Belfast.
	SELB—120 miles (60 in each direction) from a SELB location to Jordanstown.
	WELB—300 miles (150 in each direction), Londonderry to Dublin (St. Mary's School of the Deaf), child boards in Dublin so travels only on a Sunday night and Friday evening.
	It should be stressed that these journeys are exceptional—the child in question may have a specific difficulty that can only be dealt with at a specific school. Most other pupils attending special schools may attend any suitable school and these are usually much nearer to their homes. However, with only 45 special schools in NI, the likelihood is that statemented pupils have to travel further on average than pupils attending mainstream schools.

Student Drop-outs

David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students in further education in Northern Ireland failed to complete their course in each of the last 10 years.

Angela Smith: Data pertaining for all students at NI Further Education Colleges who failed to complete their course is only available since the 2003–04 academic year. However, a 10 year run (between 1995–96 and 2004–05) of final year enrolment (approximately 75 per cent. of total enrolments) non-completion figures on assessed courses is detailed as follows:
	
		
			  Number of final year FE enrolments who fail to complete their course Number of final year FE enrolments Proportion who fail to complete their course (percentage) 
		
		
			 1995–96 5,494 70,770 8 
			 1996–97 6,468 74,315 9 
			 1997–98 7,105 82,080 9 
			 1998–99 8,707 84,338 10 
			 1999–2000 8,673 91,250 10 
			 2000–01 8,423 97,708 9 
			 2001–02 8,919 91,975 10 
			 2002–03 11,453 97,662 12 
			 2003–04 10,149 105,043 10 
			 2004–05 12,347 116,110 11 
		
	
	Source:
	PELS

Agency Nurses

Richard Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of agency nurses was in NHS organisations in Suffolk in each year since 1997.

Rosie Winterton: The following tables show the total expenditure on non-national health service employed nursing staff in NHS organisations by organisations in Suffolk:
	
		Table 1. Expenditure by primary care trusts (PCTs) since 2002–03, when PCTs were formed. £000
		
			 Organisation 2004–05 2003–04 2002–03 
		
		
			 Ipswich PCT 17 22 27 
			 Suffolk Coastal PCT 117 130 5 
			 Central Suffolk PCT 36 100 145 
			 Suffolk West PCT 79 56 56 
			 Waveney PCT 166 149 202 
		
	
	
		Table 2: Expenditure by NHS trusts since 1997. £000
		
			 Organisation 2004–05 2003–04 2002–03 2001–02 2000–01 1999–2000 1998–99 1997–98 
		
		
			 Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust 1,102 1,419 898 939 726 479 377 159 
			 West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust 401 304 878 995 328 660 503 512 
			 East Anglian Ambulance NHS Trust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Suffolk Mental Health Partnership Trust 725 861 0 0 0 0 0 0 
		
	
	Note:
	Expenditure is for non-NHS employed staff including nursing, midwifery and health visiting.
	Source:
	Annual financial returns of NHS trusts and PCTs.

Alzheimer's Disease

Joan Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in each of the last 10 years.

Liam Byrne: The information on the number of people who were diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in each of the last 10 years is shown in the table.
	All diagnoses count of finished consultant episodes and patients with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease in national health service hospitals, England, 1995–96 to 2004–05.
	
		
			  Finished consultant episodes Patient count 
		
		
			 1995–96 27,411 n/a 
			 1996–97 31,641 n/a 
			 1997–98 30,369 17,379 
			 1998–99 30,493 17,776 
			 1999–2000 28,601 16,830 
			 2000–01 29,329 16,666 
			 2001–02 32,042 17,938 
			 2002–03 19,485 35,369 
			 2003–04 38,874 21,877 
			 2004–05 44,213 24,214 
		
	
	Notes:
	1.Finished consultant episode (FCE)
	An FCE is defined as a period of admitted patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that the figures do not represent the number of patients, as a person may have more than one episode of care within the year.
	2.All diagnoses count of episodes
	These figures represent a count of all FCE's where the diagnosis was mentioned in any of the 14 (seven prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in a Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) record.
	3.Diagnosis (primary diagnosis)
	The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (seven prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in the HES data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.
	4.Secondary diagnoses
	As well as the primary diagnosis, there are up to 13 (six prior to 2002–03) secondary diagnosis fields in Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) that show other diagnoses relevant to the episode of care.
	5.Patient counts
	Patient counts are based on the unique patient identifier HES identification (HESID). This identifier is derived based on patient's date of birth, postcode, sex, local patient identifier and NHS number, using an agreed algorithm. Where data are incomplete, HESID might erroneously link episodes or fail to recognise episodes for the same patient. Care is therefore needed, especially where duplicate records persist in the data. The patient count cannot be summed across a table where patients may have episodes in more than one cell.
	6.Grossing (finished consultant episodes)
	Figures are grossed for both coverage and missing/invalid clinical data, except for 2003–04 and 2004–05, which is not yet adjusted for shortfalls.
	Source:
	HES, NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre

Alzheimer's Disease

Joan Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Government has spent on research into Alzheimer's disease and other associated dementias in each year from 2000 to 2004; and if she will make a statement.

Jane Kennedy: The main agency through which the Government supports medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC is an independent body funded by the Department of Trade and Industry via the Office of Science and Technology. MRC expenditure on research into dementia1 in the years in question was as follows:
	
		
			  £ million 
		
		
			 2000–01 8.2 
			 2001–02 6.6 
			 2002–03 6.6 
			 2003–04 7.4 
			 2004–05 not yet available 
		
	
	(111)Including Alzheimer's disease, general dementia. AIDS related dementia, Pick's disease and Huntingtons
	
		
			  £ million 
		
		
			 2000–01 4.7 
			 2001–02 2.9 
			 2002–03 1.6 
			 2003–04 1.1 
			 2004–05 0.6

Alzheimer's Disease

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what her most recent estimate is of the number of patients suffering from (a) mild Alzheimer's and (b) moderate Alzheimer's who are receiving (i)donepezil, (ii) rivastigmine and (iii) galantamine for the treatment of their condition.

Liam Byrne: The information requested is not held centrally.

Cancer

Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients normally resident in Lancashire have been treated for cancer in Lancashire in the past 12months.

Liam Byrne: The information is not available in the format requested. However, the table shows the numbers of patients who reside in the Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority area who were treated for cancer at hospitals based in the area.
	
		All diagnosis count of finished consultant episodes and patients for cancer by selected providers of treatment strategic health authority of residence is Cumbria and Lancashire National Health Service Hospitals, England 2004–05
		
			 Provider of treatment Finished consultant episodes Patient counts 
		
		
			 North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS Trust 8,513 3,567 
			 Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust 7,897 4,575 
			 Southport and Ormskirk NHS Trust 1,400 906 
			 Blackpool, Fylde And Wyre Hospitals NHS Trust 12,500 4,003 
			 Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust 9,220 5,739 
			 East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust 11,359 5,053 
			 Total finished consultant episodes 50,889 n/a 
			 Total unique patients — 23,410 
		
	
	Notes:
	1.Finished consultant episode (FCE)
	An FCE is defined as a period of admitted patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that the figures do not represent the number of patients, as a person may have more than one episode of care within the year.
	2.All diagnoses count of episodes
	These figures represent a count of all FCE's where the diagnosis was mentioned in any of the 14 (seven prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in a hospital episode statistics (HES) record.
	3.Diagnosis (primary diagnosis)
	The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (seven prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in the HES data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.
	4.Secondary diagnosis
	As well as the primary diagnosis, there are up to 13 (six prior to 2002–03) secondary diagnosis fields in HES that show other diagnoses relevant to the episode of care.
	5.Patient counts
	Patients counts are based on the unique patient identifier HES identification (HESID). This identifier is derived based on patient's date of birth, postcode, sex, local patient identifier and NHS number, using an agreed algorithm. Where data are incomplete, HESID might erroneously link episodes or fail to recognise episodes for the same patient. Care is therefore needed, especially where duplicate records persist in the data. The patient count cannot be summed across a table where patients may have episodes in more than one cell.

Cervical Smear Tests (Peterborough and Stamford Area)

Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of cervical smear test results were completed within six weeks in the Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust area in the last period for which figures are available.

Rosie Winterton: The information is not collected in the requested format. Data on the percentage of smear tests results completed by number of weeks in the Peterborough area in 2004–05 is shown in the table.
	
		Smear tests in the Peterborough area for 2004–05
		
			 Primary care trust title Description Number of tests Percentage Notification within 6 weeks (percentage) 
		
		
			 North Peterborough PCT Less than or equal to 4 weeks 1,968 26 70 
			 North Peterborough PCT More than 4 weeks up to 6 weeks 3,268 44 — 
			 North Peterborough PCT More than 6 weeks up to 8 weeks 1,631 22 — 
			 North Peterborough PCT More than 8 weeks up to 10 weeks 531 7 — 
			 North Peterborough PCT More than 10 weeks up to 12 weeks 23 0 — 
			 North Peterborough PCT Over 12 weeks 9 0 — 
			 North Peterborough PCT Total 7,430 100 — 
			 North Peterborough PCT Letter not sent by health authority 350 — — 
			  
			 South Peterborough PCT Less than or equal to 4 weeks 2,170 31 73 
			 South Peterborough PCT More than 4 weeks up to 6 weeks 2,845 41 — 
			 South Peterborough PCT More than 6 weeks up to 8 weeks 1,354 20 — 
			 South Peterborough PCT More than 8 weeks up to 10 weeks 522 8 — 
			 South Peterborough PCT More than 10 weeks up to 12 weeks 17 0 — 
			 South Peterborough PCT Over 12 weeks 6 0 — 
			 South Peterborough PCT Total 6,914 100 — 
			 South Peterborough PCT Letter not sent by health authority 738 — — 
			  
			 Peterborough combined Up to 6 weeks 10,251 71 71 
			  Total 14,344 — — 
		
	
	Source:
	KC53 Returns.

Dentistry

Jim Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were registered with an NHS dentist in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne in each of the last five years; and what percentage of the population that represented in each year.

Rosie Winterton: The information requested is shown in the table.
	
		General dental services (GDS) and personal dental services (PDS): Number and percentage of people who were registered with a national health service dentist in Newcastle Primary Care Trust as at 30 September in each specified year
		
			  Number Percentage 
		
		
			 2001 141,552 53 
			 2002 148,039 56 
			 2003 144,531 54 
			 2004 148,691 55 
			 2005 156,652 58 
		
	
	Notes:
	1.Most PDS schemes that have registrations have re-registration periods in excess of 15 months, so the figures for PDS schemes are generally higher than they would have been for the same attendance pattern under GDS.
	2.2002–04 population data are an estimate based on the 2001 resident census.
	3.2005 percentages have been calculated using 2004 population data.
	Source:
	Dental Practice Board

Dentistry

Steve Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of registered dentists were practising in England but not working within the NHS in the latest year for which figures are available; and what she estimates this figure will be in (a) 2006, (b) 2007 and (c) 2008, based on current trends.

Rosie Winterton: Data on registered dentists practising in England but not working within the national health service is not held centrally.
	In 2003, the Office of fair Trading, in its report The Private Dentistry Market in the UK", estimated that around 200 of the United Kingdom's 11,000 dental practices provided no NHS treatment at all.

Dentistry

Douglas Carswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists there are in Tendring; and how many there were in each of the past five years.

Rosie Winterton: Data on the number of dentists working purely in private practice are not held centrally. The numbers of national health service dentists with a general dental service (CDS) contract or personal dental services (PDS) contract for the specified primary care trust (PCT) is shown in the table.
	
		Dentists within Tendring PCT as at 30 September each year
		
			  Number 
		
		
			 2001 45 
			 2002 44 
			 2003 43 
			 2004 46 
			 2005 55 
		
	
	Notes:
	1.Data includes all notifications of dentists joining or leaving the CDS or PDS, received by the Dental Practice Board, up to 19 October 2005. Figures for the numbers of dentists at specified dates may vary depending upon the notification period, e.g. data with a later notification period will include more recent notifications of dentists joining or leaving the CDS or PDS.
	2.Dentists include principals, assistants and trainees. Prison contracts have been excluded from the data.
	3.The postcode of the dental practice was used to allocate dentists to specific geographic areas. PCT areas have been defined using the Office for National Statistics all fields postcode directory.
	Source:
	Dental Practice Board

Dentistry

Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the number of people in the Peterborough city council unitary authority area who are unable to register with an NHS dentist.

Rosie Winterton: The number of people unable to register with a national health service dentist is not collected centrally.
	The number of people registered with an NHS dentist in the Peterborough Local Authority (LA) area as at 30 September 2005 was 93,318. We estimate this figure to be 59 per cent. of the total population of the Peterborough LA area which, using the latest available population figures, was estimated to be 159,084 in 2004.
	Notes:
	1. Data includes General Dentist Service (GDS) and Personal Dental Service (PDS) registrations/PDS patients seen (counts patients seen in the past 15 months for some PDS schemes).
	2. Most PDS schemes that have registrations have re-registration periods in excess of 15 months, so the figures for PDS schemes are generally higher than they would have been for the same attendance pattern under GDS.
	3. 2004 population data are an estimate based on the 2001 resident census and is the latest available data.
	4. 2005 percentages have been calculated using 2004 population data.
	Source:
	Dental Practice Board

Disability

Danny Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what assessment she has made of the ability of community services to deliver the National Service Framework recommendation on equipment for disabled children; and if she will make a statement;
	(2)  what discussions she has had with the Department for Education and Skills on co-ordinating basic data on (a) the number and needs of disabled children in local areas, (b) the inclusion of disabled children in Children Act databases and (c) the inclusion of disabled children in the Common Assessment Framework; and if she will make a statement.

Liam Byrne: The Department has funded the integrating community equipment services initiative, ranging across health and social care, to address the need to modernise, develop and improve access to equipment for disabled children. Improving the capability of the community services will help to deliver recommendations within the children's national service framework (NSF) on the availability of equipment and assistive technology. The Department is also in discussion with the Healthcare Commission on implementing the children's NSF, and the Healthcare Commission will be taking forward thematic reviews to assess progress.
	Officials from the Department and the Department for Education and Skills continue to work together on developing services in line with the NSF and on the common assessment framework. Officials are working on a range of issued including safeguarding children, children's palliative care, children with complex disability and extending the child health mapping exercise. The mapping exercise is an annual survey indicating the nature of current provision and promoting the commissioning of high quality services.

Drug Treatment Programmes

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many drug treatment places there are specifically for Khat users; and how many users of Khat are on drug treatment programmes.

Caroline Flint: The Department does not have information on how many drug treatment places there are in England specifically for Khat users, and are not aware of any Khat-specific treatment services.
	Data from the national drug treatment monitoring system shows that 141 people in England reported to treatment services with Khat as their main drug of use, and nine persons reported with it as their secondary drug of use, between April 2004 and December 2005.

Ebixa

Joan Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  how many people were prescribed Ebixa on the NHS in the last three years for which figures are available; and what the cost to the NHS for Ebixa was in each year;
	(2)  what the cost to the NHS of prescribing drug treatments for people in the moderate stages of Alzheimer's disease was in 2004–05;
	(3)  how many people with Alzheimer's disease have been treated with anti-cholinesterase drugs since they were licensed in the UK.

Jane Kennedy: The Department does not hold data on the number of people prescribed particular drugs but does hold data on the number of national health service prescriptions dispensed. Therefore, there is no data on the number of people treated with Ebixa. However, prescription cost analysis (PCA) data shows the number of prescriptions dispensed in England for Ebixa were:
	
		
			  Prescription items dispensed 
		
		
			 2002 319 
			 2003 7,624 
			 2004 17,726 
		
	
	The British National Formulary (section 4.11) lists three drugs, Aricept, Exelon and Reminyl as potentially suitable for the management of mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. Additionally, Ebixa is listed for the management of moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease. The Department does not know what proportion of prescribing for these drugs were for mild, moderate or severe Alzheimer's disease. However, according to the PCA database, the net ingredient cost of drugs for dementia dispensed in the community in England 2004–05 was £44.7 million, 534.5 thousand items. In addition, Intercontinental Marketing Services estimate that the cost of these drugs dispensed in hospitals in England was £11.9 million in 2004–05.
	As already mentioned, the Department does not hold data on the number of people prescribed particular drugs but does hold data on the number of NHS prescriptions dispensed. Therefore, there is no data on the number of people prescribed anti-cholinesterase drugs. However, PCA data shows the accumulative costs up to the end of September 2005 for England were:
	
		
			 Drug First prescribed Value (£ million) Prescriptions items dispensed 
		
		
			 Aricept 1997 115.3 1,300,000 
			 Reminyl 2000 18.7 242,000 
			 Ebixa 1998 3.5 46,600 
			 Exelon 1998 15.0 217,500

Employment Checks

Paul Rowen: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what steps her Department takes to ensure that all people working with (a) vulnerable adults and (b) the elderly are checked by the Criminal Records Bureau before they are employed;
	(2)  what steps her Department takes to ensure that private companies providing care for (a) the elderly and (b) vulnerable adults adhere to guidelines to ensure that all their employees are checked by the Criminal Records Bureau before commencing employment;
	(3)  what reports she has received of cases of people being employed in the care of elderly and vulnerable people who subsequently were found to have criminal records and to be unsuitable for such employment; and what steps she took following receipt of those reports.

Liam Byrne: holding answer 14 February 2006
	All care homes, domiciliary care agencies, adult placements schemes and nurses agencies in England are regulated by the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI), which is the independent regulator for social care. The CSCI is responsible for registering and inspecting the regulated social care sector in accordance with statutory regulations and national minimum standards to ensure consistency and improve the quality of life and level of protection for the most vulnerable people in society.
	Regulated social care providers, including private companies, are require to conduct rigorous pre-employment checks on prospective staff including obtaining a Criminal Records Bureau disclosure. Since 26 July 2004, there has also been a requirement for prospective employees in these areas to be checked against the protection of vulnerable adults (POVA) list before starting work.
	All care homes, domiciliary care agencies, adult placements schemes and nurses agencies in England are regulated by the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI), which is the independent regulator for social care. The CSCI is responsible for registering and inspecting the regulated social care sector in accordance with statutory regulations and national minimum standards to ensure consistency and improve the quality of life and level of protection for the most vulnerable people in society.
	Regulated social care providers, including private companies, are require to conduct rigorous pre-employment checks on prospective staff including obtaining a Criminal Records Bureau disclosure. Since 26 July 2004, there has also been a requirement for prospective employees in these areas to be checked against the protection of vulnerable adults (POVA) list before starting work.

Financial Management (Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire)

Nadine Dorries: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial savings (a) have been implemented since 2001 and (b) are proposed for the future by (i)Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire NHS strategic health authority, (ii) Bedford Hospital NHS Trust and (iii) Bedfordshire Heartlands NHS primary care trust; and if she will make a statement.

Rosie Winterton: Data on savings that have been implemented by Bedford Hospital Trusts and Bedford Heartlands primary care trust (PCT) area is shown in the table.
	
		
			   £ 
			  Bedford Hospital National Health Service Trust Bedfordshire Heartlands PCT 
		
		
			 2001–02 340,000 410,000 
			 2002–03 700,000 478,000 
			 2003–04 800,000 600,000 
			 2004–05 1,508,000 3,000,000 
			 2005–06 4,424,000 5,500,000 
		
	
	The Department requires the strategic health authority to deliver its agreed financial plan for 2005–06.

Financial Management (Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire)

Nadine Dorries: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the (a) budget was and (b) total spent from budget was under each financial heading for (i)the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire NHS Strategic Health Authority, (ii) Bedford Hospital NHS Trust and (iii)Bedfordshire Heartlands NHS Primary Care Trust in each year since 2001; and if she will make a statement.

Rosie Winterton: Tables one, two and three detail the budgetary expenditure for Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Strategic Health Authority (SHA), Bedford Hospital National Health Service Trust and Bedfordshire Heartlands Primary Care Trust (PCT).
	
		Table 1: Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire SHA £000
		
			  2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 
		
		
			 Primary healthcare purchased 52,372 0 0 
			 Primary care act pilots healthcare purchased 3,406 0 0 
			 Secondary healthcare purchased 1,400 0 0 
			 Total healthcare expenditure 57,178 0 0 
			 Non-executive members remuneration 55 62 62 
			 Other salaries and wages 2,613 3,632 4,832 
			 Pension costs: pre-1995 early retirements 4,208 0 0 
			 Supplies and services—clinical 0 0 0 
			 Supplies and services—general 15 0 0 
			 Establishment expenses 639 497 626 
			 Transport and moveable plant  3 3 
			 Premises and fixed plant 2,319 817 1,040 
			 External contractors 740 380 590 
			 Capital—depreciation 40 37 0 
			 Capital—impairments 0 1,198 140 
			 Capital charges interest 1,643 118 44 
			 (Profit)/loss on disposal of fixed assets 0 0 0 
			 Auditors remuneration—audit fee 127 172 90 
			 Auditors remuneration—other fees 63 0 1 
			 Unwinding of discount on provisions 0 0 0 
			 Interest payable 23 45 0 
			 PCT preparatory costs 0 0 0 
			 Training (workforce development confederations) 55,771 61,964 67,205 
			 Miscellaneous 169 760 924 
			 Total expenditure 125,606 69,685 75,556 
			 Revenue resource limit 66,471 67,713 74,541 
			 Underspend against revenue resource limit 363 1,408 1,976 
		
	
	
		Table 2: Bedford Hospitals NHS Trust £000
		
			  2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 
		
		
			 Services from other NHS trusts 494 486 559 1,524 
			 Services from other NHS bodies 0 4 0 191 
			 Services from foundation trusts 0 0 0 290 
			 Purchase of healthcare from non-NHS bodies 0 0 628 912 
			 Directors costs 364 394 441 616 
			 Staff costs 53,780 58,782 65,256 74,376 
			 Supplies and services—clinical 10,718 12,336 12,848 14,216 
			 Supplies and services—general 1,774 1,745 1,872 2,044 
			 Establishment 1,687 1,467 1,605 1,666 
			 Transport 110 101 119 148 
			 Premises 3,455 3,521 4,153 4,061 
			 Bad debts 54 28 13 125 
			 Depreciation and amortisation 2,324 2,410 2,809 3,880 
			 Fixed asset impairments and reversals 0 1,646 0 0 
			 Audit fees 159 185 205 146 
			 Other auditors remuneration 0 0 54 0 
			 Clinical negligence 361 938 1,061 1,851 
			 Pre-95 early retirements 0 0 0 0 
			 Other 2,580 3,917 2,179 958 
			 Total expenditure 77,860 87,960 93,802 107,004 
			 Retained surplus/(deficit) for the year (3,149) 2,741 120 (8,480) 
		
	
	
		Table 3: Bedfordshire Heartlands Primary Care Trust £000
		
			  2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 
		
		
			 Goods and services from other PCTs 46,778 58,130 65,145 43,832 
			 Goods and services from other NHS bodies 104,652 74,314 77,624 113,641 
			 Goods and services from foundation trusts 0 0 0 11,051 
			 Purchase of healthcare from non-NHS bodies 0 0 11,907 16,131 
			 Social care from independent providers 0 0 0 0 
			 Expenditure on drugs action teams 0 759 1,160 1,322 
			 Non-general medical service (CMS) services from general practitioners 1,055 870 2,002 0 
			 Personal medical services (PMS) and personal dental services (PDS) pilots 1,669 5,111 12,036 1,653 
			 PCT board members costs 427 201 236 247 
			 PCT executive non-officer members costs 0 165 192 151 
			 Staff costs 10,834 13,523 15,205 17,943 
			 Prescribing costs 24,542 28,020 30,616 32,739 
			 CMS discretionary 4,917 3,592 3,469 0 
			 CMS non-discretionary 0 4,089 9,380 0 
			 G/PMS, alternative providers of medical services and PCT medical services 0 0 0 29,308 
			 Pharmaceutical services 0 419 1,253 916 
			 Local pharmaceutical services pilots 0 0 0 0 
			 General dental services 0 80 183 334 
			 General ophthalmic services 0 505 1,033 1,159 
			 Supplies and services—clinical 1,354 1,397 2,128 2,597 
			 Supplies and services—general 717 1,224 316 317 
			 Establishment 1,152 1,360 1,709 1,809 
			 Transport 68 8 8 4 
			 Premises 99 242 820 1,129 
			 Bad debts 0 6 7 0 
			 Depreciation and amortisation 202 253 325 381 
			 Fixed asset impairments and reversals 0 0 0 0 
			 (Profit)/loss on disposal of fixed assets 0 0 1 0 
			 Cost of capital charge (616) (194) (158) (309) 
			 Audit fees 11 105 158 150 
			 Other auditors remuneration 188 0 3 32 
			 Clinical negligence costs 0 64 14 17 
			 NHS trust impairments 0 2,665 0 0 
			 Other finance costs—unwinding of discount 0 (23) 14 14 
			 Other 9,876 14,847 918 782 
			 Total expenditure 207,925 211,732 237,704 277,350 
			 Revenue resource limit 152,826 175,146 193,348 222,156 
			 Under/(over)spend against revenue resource limit 250 (526) (3,008) (14,536) 
		
	
	Notes:
	1.SHAs were established in 2002–03 therefore only three years' data is available. Four years' data has been provided for the NHS trust and for the primary care trust. 2004–05 is the latest year for which we have audited data.
	2.The Department does not set budgets for NHS bodies. SHAs and PCTs are notified of their revenue resource limit each year and their performance against the resource limit is provided in tables one and three. NHS trusts receive income for the provision of services and the performance measure is the surplus or deficit as shown in table two.
	3.Not all expenditure lines were collected each year. A zero may mean there was no relevant expenditure or that the particular item was not collected.
	4.Revenue resource limits do not include non-discretionary expenditure.
	Source:
	Audited summarisation schedules of the strategic health authority, primary care trust and NHS trust as appropriate.

Funding (Doncaster, North)

Edward Miliband: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much her Department has allocated for (a) hospital services, (b) general practitioner services and (c) dental services in the constituency of Doncaster, North in each year since 1997.

Liam Byrne: The information is not available in the format requested. Funding is allocated to primary care trusts (PCTs) on the basis of the relative needs of their populations. It is for PCTs to determine how to use the funding allocated to them to commission services to meet the healthcare needs of their local populations. Allocations made to the Doncaster PCTs from 2005–06 to 2007–08 are shown in the following table.
	
		PCT allocations £ million
		
			  Doncaster central PCT Doncaster east PCT Doncaster west PCT 
		
		
			 2005–06 115.8 100.0 123.7 
			 2006–07 137.0 118.2 146.4 
			 2007–08 149.8 129.2 160.1

General Practitioners

Chris Ruane: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many single general practitioner surgeries there are in each local authority area in descending order.

Liam Byrne: Data on the number of single-handed contracted general practitioners by primary care trust (PCT) area has been placed in the Library. This information is not available by local authority areas unless that is coterminous with the PCT area.

General Practitioners

Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners are practising in Essex; what the ratio of GPs to patients is in (a) Essex and (b) England; and what the equivalent ratios were for each of the last five years.

Rosie Winterton: holding answer 16 February 2006
	The information requested is shown in the table.
	
		Average list size of general medical practitioners, excluding retainers and registrars,for England and Essex Strategic Health Authority 2000–04 Number (headcount)
		
			  2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 
		
		
			 England  
			 All practitioners, excluding retainers and registrars 28,593 28,802 29,202 30,358 31,523 
			 Patients 51,336,812 51,254,833 51,524,894 52,713,780 52,527,737 
			 Average list size 1,795 1,780 1,764 1,736 1,666 
			 of which:  
			 Q03 Essex  
			 All practitioners, excluding retainers and registrars 829 816 803 866 915 
			 Patients 1,648,879 1,641,100 1,646,695 1,690,519 1,674,591 
			 Average list size 1,989 2,011 2,051 1,952 1,830

Genito-urinary Medicine

Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for health what percentage of patients in each primary care trust in England are currently being seen in genitor-urinary medicine clinics within the 48 hour target in the last period for which figures are available; what steps she is taking to increase the number being seen within the target; and if she will make a statement.

Caroline Flint: The report from the most recent survey of genitor-urinary medicine (GUM) clinic waiting times for August 2005 published by the Health Protection Agency (HPA) showed that 48 per cent. of patients were seen within 48 hours. This compares with 38 per cent. of attendees who were seen within 48 hours of first contacting the clinic, in May 2004. This report is freely available on the HPA's website at: www.hpa. org.uk/infections/topics_az/hiv_and_sti/epidemiology/August_2005_waiting_times_report.pdf.
	In addition, sexual health and access to genitor-urinary clinics is one of the six top priorities for the NHS in 2006–07. By 2008 everyone should be offered an appointment within 48 hours of contacting a GUM clinic. Strategic health authorities have all submitted plans to meet this target.

Genito-urinary Medicine

Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  how much was spent on genitor-urinary medicine clinics by each primary care trust (PCT) in England in each of the last three years; and what the projected budget of each PCT is for these clinics for the next two years;
	(2)  what steps she (a) is taking and (b) plans to take to ensure that the money allocated for genito-urinary medicine modernisation is spent for that purpose by each primary care trust.

Caroline Flint: Primary care trusts (PCTs) and strategic health authorities (SHAs) will receive funding for implementing the targets in the White Paper Choosing Health: making healthy choices easier" in their mainstream allocations and we will be monitoring the outcomes from this investment. A copy of the White Paper is available in the Library. Sexual health is one of the top six priorities for the national health service in 2006–07. In particular, by 2008 everyone should be offered an appointment within 48 hours of contacting a genitor-urinary medicine (GUM) clinic. This increased priority for sexual health should significantly strengthen the incentive for local investment and service modernisation.
	In addition, a letter has been sent to SHA chief executives highlighting that when considering any savings from implementing Commissioning a patient led NHS' savings should not be identified from those posts working on implementation of Choosing Health. This includes posts in front-line services.
	Data on spend by GUM clinics by individual PCTs is not collected centrally.

Health and Social Care Services

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to her oral statement of 30 January 2006, Official Report, column 21, on health and social care services, which programmes have been financed by the 2 per cent. of the health care budget devoted to health prevention; and what the total cost of each programme is.

Caroline Flint: The 2 per cent. figure is based on data compiled using the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developments (OECD) framework for health accounts as set out in A System of HealthAccounts, OECD, 2002", available on-line fromthe OECD's website at www.oecd.org/document/8/0,2340,en_2649_201185_2742536_l_l_l_l,00.html, which also shows how expenditure for prevention and public health services has been classified.

Health Budget

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer to the Health Committee by Mr.Richard Douglas of 6 December 2005, HC (2005–06) 736-i, on public expenditure on health and personal social services, question 292, what the costing is for the 18-week waiting time target.

Liam Byrne: The estimated cost of delivering the 18-week waiting target made at the 2004 Spending Review is shown in the following table. Costs beyond 2007–08 will form part of the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007.
	
		
			   £ million 
			 Policy initiative 2006–07 2007–08 
		
		
			 Reducing waiting times and new models of care 1,000 1,900 
			 Access diagnostics 400 800 
			 Total 1,400 2,700

Healthcare Commission

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases over six months old are awaiting determination by the Healthcare Commission; what percentage this represents of the total number of cases received by the Healthcare Commission; whether the Healthcare Commission has a target timescale for resolving cases; and if she will make a statement.

Jane Kennedy: The Healthcare Commission took on responsibility for the independent review stage of complaints about the national health service at the end of July 2004. The chairman of the Healthcare Commission has confirmed that between then and the end of January 2006, the Healthcare Commission received 11,935 requests for independent review. This compares with around 3,000 cases a year under the previous NHS system. By the end of January, the Healthcare Commission had closed 6,940 of the cases it had received. Of the remaining 4,995 cases, 2,058 were over six months old. This represented approximately 17 per cent., of the total number of cases received.
	The Healthcare Commission originally intended to resolve cases within six months. From 1 April 2006, it will aim to resolve 65 per cent., of its cases within eight weeks within a year. The chairman of the Healthcare Commission has said that the new targets better reflect the complexity of the cases for independent review.

MRSA

Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have (a) successfully claimed and (b) attempted to claim compensation for contracting MRSA in each of the Lancashire hospitals in each of the last five years.

Liam Byrne: The information requested is not available in the required format. However, national data are shown in the table.
	
		
			 Notification year(114) (A) Number of successful claims made, that is damages paid (B) Number of attempted claims made 
		
		
			 2000–01 11 19 
			 2001–02 21 50 
			 2002–03 33 91 
			 2003–04 30 104 
			 2004–05 16 109 
		
	
	(114)Claims are recorded on the NHS Litigation Authority's database in financial years (April/March), rather than calendar years.
	Column (A) shows the number of successful claims and column (B), shows the total number of attempted claims. It is not possible however, to provide a breakdown of the data into the question's categories (i)and (ii)—as centrally held data does not differentiate between a patient and a member of their family claiming for negligence.
	The figures provided are in respect of all claims where Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is stated as an element of the claim, it could be a cause or an injury. The contraction of the MRSA could be a non-negligent consequence of the negligent act.
	Centrally collected data does not allow us to provide specific figures in respect of the allegation that it was negligent to acquire MRSA i.e. there was a breach of infection/hygiene control policies.
	The number of claims are shown by notification year, that is the financial year in which the trust was first notified that a claim was going to be made. Because the notification date can be up to three years after the incident, the table above is subject to updates that might place additional claims in certain years.

NICE

Joan Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  whether the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence assesses qualitative research in its appraisal of technologies and treatments;
	(2)  whether the membership of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence appraisal committee responsible for the appraisal of drug treatments for Alzheimer's disease includes dementia specialists.

Jane Kennedy: I understand that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) does assess both qualitative and quantitative research in its appraisal of technologies.
	The independent appraisal committee at NICE is a standing committee made up of health professionals working in the national health service and people who are familiar with the issues affecting patients and carers. Although the appraisal committee seeks the views of organisations representing health professionals, patients, carers, manufacturers and Government, its advice is independent of any vested interests. I understand that, to inform the appraisal committee's decision making on drug treatments for Alzheimerfs disease, three patient advocate nominees and four clinical experts on dementia were invited to give their expert personal views to the appraisal committee.
	The current NICE appraisal consultation document on Alzheimer's disease treatments, lists, in appendix A, the membership of the appraisal committee. A copy is available from the NICE'S website at: www.nice.org.uk.

Nursing

Brian Jenkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses work in NHS hospitals in the Burntwood, Lichfield and Tamworth primary care trust; and how many of them were employed via agencies in the last period for which figures are available.

Liam Byrne: The information requested is shown in the table.
	
		National health service hospital and community health services: qualified nurses in Burntwood, Lichfield and Tamworth primary care trust by area of work as at 30 September 2004 Headcount
		
			  Total qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff Of which Bank staff 
		
		
			 All qualified nurses 366 26 
			 Acute elderly and general 148 0 
			 Paediatric nursing 4 0 
			 Community services 182 26 
			 Practice nurses 32 0 
		
	
	Sources:
	Health and Social Care Information Centre Non-Medical Workforce Census.
	Health and Social Care Information Centre General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

Payment by Results

Michael Meacher: To ask the Secretary of State for Health under the health reform in England proposals for the system of payment by results, whether the tariff to enable the system will take account of (a) differences in costs dependent on the location of the hospital, (b) the change in prognosis for the patient before and after treatment achieved by the hospital, (c) differing responses of patients to treatment and (d) variations in duration of stay in hospital of different types of patient.

Liam Byrne: Under payment by results, the tariff is adjusted by a market forces factor which takes account of unavoidable differences in the cost of providing services across the country.
	The tariff is based on average costs as reported by national health service organisations and as such will reflect the full case mix of patients, whatever their prognosis on admission. Although there is no specific adjustment for the patient's prognosis after treatment, there is provision in guidance for a price to be agreed locally for emergency readmissions.
	The tariff takes account of differing responses to treatment, and variations in duration of stay, by providing adjustments for long and short stays in hospital. A long stay outlier payment will operate after a patient's length of stay exceeds a pre determined period in hospital, dependant on the relevant healthcare resource group (HRG), at a per diem rate specific to that particular HRG. A short stay emergency payment system is in use for certain HRGs that have a national mean non-elective spell duration of five days or more. A reduced short stay tariff is paid where the stay is zero to one day specific to that particular HRG. A short stay emergency payment system is in use for certain HRGs that have a national mean non-elective spell duration of five days or more. A reduced short stay tariff is paid where the stay is zero to one day.

Payment by Results

Michael Meacher: To ask the Secretary of State for Health under the health reform in England proposals for a tariff to be used to enable the system of payment by results, what (a) advice and (b) expertise will be provided to hospitals to enable them to assess future income against current and projected expenditure on (i) infrastructure, (ii) staff costs and (iii) service costs; where responsibility will lie for the provision of such guidance; what advice has been prepared for hospitals admitting fewer patients than budgeted for; and what measures will be available in the (A) short and (B)long-term to help hospitals that exceed the tariff rate to cover the resulting deficit.

Liam Byrne: As part of the roll-out of the whole health community diagnostic project to national health service acute trusts, an assessment will be made of the financial robustness and viability of all acute trusts that have not yet applied to become NHS Foundation Trusts (NHSFTs). This will encompass their wider health economies, as well as looking at other authorisation requirements and will give trusts a clear indication of any areas of improvement before they embark upon the NHSFTs application process.
	As a measure to help hospitals whose current costs exceed the tariff rate, payment by results is being implemented over a four-year transition period. Provider income will be managed from local prices to national tariff in incremental steps.
	Year-on-year baseline income changes are capped at two per cent. for individual providers during the four-year transition period, that is until 2008–09, to help ensure stability.

Prescription Charges/Items

Greg Hands: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  what the net ingredient cost of prescription items dispensed by (a) the NHS and (b) Hammersmith Hospital NHS Trust was in each year since 2000;
	(2)  how many prescription items were dispensed by (a) the NHS and (b) Hammersmith hospital NHS trust in each year since 2000.

Jane Kennedy: The net ingredient cost of prescription items dispensed and the number dispensed in the community in England since 2000 is shown in the following table.
	
		
			  Total net ingredient cost for England (£ million) Number of prescriptions dispensed in England (million) 
		
		
			 2000 5,584.6 551.8 
			 2001 6,116.6 587.0 
			 2002 6,846.7 617.0 
			 2003 7,510.1 649.7 
			 2004 8,079.6 686.1 
		
	
	This data is based on the prescription cost analysis (PCA) database and is taken from the Department's statistical bulletin published in 2005. This is available on the Department's website at: www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/10/76/26/04107626.pdf
	Figures for 2005 are not yet available. We have no figures for individual hospital trusts.

Royal Shrewsbury Hospital

Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will increase the settlement for the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital for the 2006–07 financial year.

Rosie Winterton: The Department does not allocate funding to national health service trusts. NHS trusts as providers of services receive the bulk of their revenue funding from commissioning by primary care trusts. NHS trusts also receive revenue funding from the Department for medical staff education services and for research and development. In addition, trusts can charge staff, visitors, or patients, for services such as catering or provision of private patient facilities.
	Shropshire County Primary Care Trust (PCT) will receive an allocation of £331.2 million for 2006–07. Thisrepresents a cash increase of £27.7 million, or 9.1 per cent.
	Telford and Wrekin PCT will receive an allocation of £187.6 million for 2006–07. This represents a cash increase of £19.5 million, or 11.6 per cent.
	It is for PCTs in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

Sexually-transmitted Diseases

John Randall: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of sexually transmitted diseases were diagnosed in (a) England, (b) London, (c) the London borough of Hillingdon and (d) Uxbridge constituency (i) in each year since 1997 and (ii) in each of the last 12months; and which sexually transmitted disease was most frequently diagnosed in each case.

Caroline Flint: The data requested is only collected at strategic health authority level and above. It is available on the Health Protection Agency's website at:
	www.hpa.org.uk/infections/topics_az/hiv_and_sti/epidemiology/dataresouce.htm.

Waiting Lists/Times

Edward Balls: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in (a) West Yorkshire and (b) Wakefield District have had to wait more than (i) one month, (ii)two months and (iii) three months for an appointment with the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service in the last 12 months.

Liam Byrne: The information requested is not held centrally.

Working with Children

Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people on (a) the sex offenders' register and (b) her Department's list of individuals who are considered unsuitable to work with children have been employed by local authorities to work with children.

Ruth Kelly: I have been asked to reply.
	The information that you require is not held by the Department.
	There is a duty on child care organisations (i.e. organisations concerned with the provision of social or health care services to children), including local authorities, who propose to employ individuals in child care positions, to check they are not on the Protection of Children Act List and that they must not offer employment to any such person.
	Moreover, it is an offence under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 for persons who are disqualified from working with children (including those on the PoCA list) to work in a child care (or regulated") position and it is an offence for an employer knowingly to offer, or fail to remove, a disqualified individual from such a position.

Academic/Support Staff (Pay)

Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much of the total funding from Rewarding and Developing Staff rounds 1 and 2 has been spent directly on pay for existing academic and support staff.

Bill Rammell: The aim of the Rewarding and Developing Staff (RDS) initiative has been to enable higher education institutions (HEIs) to develop their human resource (HR) capability. To secure allocations of funding under round 1 of the initiative (2001–02 to 2003–04), HEIs were asked to submit human resource strategies to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Institutions were asked to address six priority areas: recruitment and retention; staff development and training; equal opportunities targets (including plans for job evaluation); reviews of staffing needs; performance review; and tackling poor performance.
	KPMG was commissioned by HEFCE to undertake an evaluation of round 1 of the scheme, to assess the impact of the initiative on the development of HR management. KPMG's findings were that the distribution of expenditure between the six priority areas was as follows.
	
		
			  Proportion of expenditure (all HEIs) (2001–02 to 2003–04) 
			 Priority area £ million Percentage 
		
		
			 Staff training and development 82.5 25 
			 Recruitment and retention 66 20 
			 Analysis of staffing needs 59.4 18 
			 Equal Opportunities 42.9 13 
			 Annual Performance Reviews 19.8 6 
			 Poor Performance 13.2 4 
			 Sub-total 283.8 86 
			 Not specified 46.2 14 
			 Total 330 100 
		
	
	Note:
	Data derived from HEIs' Annual Monitoring Statements.
	It is not possible to identify expenditure on pay separately, but an element for pay will have been distributed through each of the categories "Recruitment and retention", "Equal Opportunities" and "Annual Performance Reviews". Further details of the KPMG evaluation report can be found at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2005/rd14_05/ Analysis of expenditure in round 2 (2004–05 to 2005–06), which finishes in July 2006, will be published in 2007.

Adult Education/Learning Programmes

Edward Davey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average level of employer contributions was to fees for further education adult learning programmes in the last year for which figures are available.

Bill Rammell: In 2003/04 and 2004/05 adult learners in further education (FE) were assumed to contribute 25 per cent. of the basic course cost of their learning unless fees were remitted because the learner was receiving an income-based benefit or on a Skills for Life programme. This proportion increased to 27.5 per cent. in 2005/06, and will rise again in 2006/07 to 32.5 per cent. and to 37.5 per cent. in 2007/08. In average terms, this means a rise from an hourly rate of £1.42 to £1.94 by 2007/08. The fees collected by FE colleges and other providers cannot be broken down by the source of funder and may be paid by the individual learner or their employer.
	However, we know that historically many FE providers choose to waive the fees for some of these "fee-paying" learners:
	In 2003/04, FE providers collected £152 million out of an expected £261 million
	In 2004/05, £159 million was collected out of an expected £277 million.
	The Skills Strategy White Paper set out a vision for transforming the way in which the learning and skills sector can support higher national investment in skills, which included ensuring that the state, employers and individuals all contribute towards the costs of their learning, in line with the benefits received by each.
	In order to increase the levels of fees collected, from 2005/06 the LSC agreed a fee income measure with each FE funded provider. To assist providers in developing a strategic approach to, the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) published a good practice guide to fee income earlier this year. Clearly, with the increase in the fee assumption, it will be important that FE providers recover as much money as possible from learners and employers.

Arson

Nick Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 
	(1)  how many arson attacks on schools resulted in building losses in excess of £100,000 in each year since 1996;
	(2)  what guidance her Department has issued to schools on arson prevention.

Jacqui Smith: The Department does not have information on the costs of individual school fires, and nor does the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM).
	According to figures from ODPM, around 60 per cent. of school fires are started deliberately. It is a serious problem and the Department has issued guidance on arson prevention in two of its Managing School Facilities handbooks: Guide 4, "Improving Security in Schools" and; Guide 6, "Fire Safety". Both of these are published by the Stationery Office, and the latter can also be viewed on www.teachernet.gov.uk/fire. The Department is also represented on the Arson in Schools Working Group, an inter-departmental and inter-agency group, which produced the guide "How to combat Arson in Schools", available from the Arson Prevention Bureau.
	Work on new fire safety guidance for schools is well advanced and this includes further advice on arson prevention. Entitled "Designing and Managing Against the Risk of Fire in Schools", we expect to be able to publish this by September this year.

Bullying

Huw Irranca-Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 
	(1)  what steps the Government are taking to tackle bullying in schools;
	(2)  what statistics the Government holds on bullying in schools;
	(3)  what assessment she has made of Government strategies to tackle bullying in schools.

Jacqui Smith: This Government have given an unprecedentedly high profile to tackling bullying and supporting those who have been bullied. Our anti-bullying work, including the anti-bullying charter for action, takes an integrated approach to preventing bullying, to addressing causes of bullying—for example prejudice—and to helping those who are bullied.
	Following the White Paper, in 2006 we shall be issuing guidance on prejudice driven bullying, including racist and homophobic bullying, providing school staff with valuable support in an area they often find challenging. On 28 February we plan to launch our advice on countering racist bullying and we will follow this in March with a national programme of dissemination events.
	Since 1999 it has been compulsory for every school to have an anti-bullying policy in place which details how the school will tackle bullying.
	We have secured a very broad consensus, with all the teaching professional associations and the Anti-Bullying Alliance signing up to our anti-bullying charter for action. The charter is a voluntary commitment to creating a school community where bullying is not tolerated. In 2006 we plan to share examples of where the charter has been particularly well implemented with other schools so that they can learn from this best practice.
	Through our work with the Anti-Bullying Alliance (ABA), an organisation comprising over 65 leading anti-bullying charities and experts, we provide schools and local authorities with expert help to tackle bullying. The national strategies' behaviour materials provide schools with support in reducing and responding to bullying.
	We have put more adults than ever in our schools—teachers, classroom assistants, learning mentors, Connexions personal advisers, behaviour and education support teams and police officers—so that a wide range of people are available to help prevent and tackle bullying.
	Anti-bullying week continues to be a successful event with a large number of schools taking part in November 2005's activities through a wide variety of national and local events. There was a considerable amount of positive press coverage and this year over 325,000 anti-bullying wristbands were distributed.
	Our anti-bullying resource pack for schools "Bullying: Don't Suffer in Silence", updated in 2000 and Sept 2002 will be revised and re-issued in 2006 to ensure schools have the most up-to-date information available on tackling bullying.
	In addition the Department has recently launched the social and emotional aspects of learning (SEAL) curriculum resource—an intervention to develop children's social, emotional and behavioural skills from foundation stage to year 6. It is available to all primary schools and the evidence from the pilot suggests that it helps reduce bullying and promotes positive behaviour generally. It is an important arm of the Department's longer term policy to promote positive behaviour and attendance. The Department is hoping to build on the work carried out in primary schools by providing a similar whole school curriculum based resource for secondary schools (SEES). At present the programme is in a very early pilot stage.
	As data on bullying is not collected centrally, we do not have statistics relating to incidents of bullying in schools across England. We do know however that schools and local authorities are increasingly carrying out local surveys of children and young people's views of bullying to inform the development of their anti-bullying strategies.
	Bullying cases do appear to be reported more often now than before but we have no hard evidence that bullying is increasing or that it is affecting more children. Indeed, as children feel more confident to speak out about bullying it is likely that the number of cases reported will rise.
	We have assessed our anti-bullying strategies in the following ways:
	The Department's 2003–04 make the difference conference series was an important part of our strategy for sharing effective practice between schools and local authorities. The series was heavily over subscribed and delegates told us that they left feeling inspired and motivated to promote continuing changes and improvement in their schools.
	The overall evaluations for the London conference were 100 percent. positive, and for the series overall 97 percent. positive.
	The web statistics of a workshop used at the Wembley conference reflect the enthusiasm and interest generated by this conference. The number of hits on their site increased to over 20,000 the week following the conference, compared with 48 hits in their own launch week.
	Last year's anti-bullying week was very well supported with a large number of different events taking place across the country. A considerable amount of positive press coverage was received.
	The anti-bullying charter for action that was launched in November 2003 has been signed and returned to the ABA by about 4,000 schools. We believe that other schools have adopted the charter, but have not returned it to the ABA, and that more still have used it as the basis for developing their school anti bullying policies. The Practitioner's Group on behaviour and discipline, which was composed of heads and practitioners expert in the field of school discipline, published its report, "Learning Behaviour", in October 2005 outlining best practice in schools, as well as future recommendations. Their report in particular welcomed and endorsed the charter, suggesting that it be re-issued every two years to maintain momentum, a recommendation which we acted upon in anti-bullying week 2005.
	The two anti-bullying public information films ("Tell Someone", 2003, and "I am", 2004) are the two most watched public information films created by the department. It seems reasonable to assume that such a volume of interest has led to increased awareness, both of the need for children and young people to tell someone if they are being bullied, and of the fact that the person being bullied is not to blame.
	In addition, our guidance to schools on tackling bullying, "Don't Suffer in Silence", has been externally evaluated by researchers at Goldsmith's College, University of London. The results, though based on a fairly low response rate from schools, show that the schools found that the pack met their expectations and helped in drawing up their anti-bullying policies. This evaluation included research into the perceived success of the anti bullying strategies and interventions recommended in the guidance. Schools generally reported a high level of satisfaction with the interventions they had used.

Care Support Services

Edward Balls: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what support services are available for children leaving care in (a) the Wakefield District and (b) Normanton constituency.

Maria Eagle: The Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 imposes a duty on every local authority with social services responsibilities to provide services and support for their care leavers at least until they are 21, or longer if they remain in education or training. Such services must be identified in the pathway plan that must be provided for every care leaver and will be co-ordinated by the young person's leaving care personal adviser. The exact services provided for each individual will depend on their specific assessed needs but include—practical and emotional support, support to access suitable accommodation, support to access education, training and employment and, where necessary, related financial assistance.
	Services to care-leavers in Wakefield have been provided through "Signpost"—a partnership between Wakefield Social Services and Barnardo's—for the past 12 years. Additional partners include Wakefield Supporting People Team and Connexions. Signpost works with between 200 and 230 young people, aged between 16 and 21 (24 if in continuing education) at any one time.

Care Support Services

Edward Balls: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children left care in the Wakefield district and Normanton constituency in (a) 2004 and (b) 2005; and how many have left care.

Beverley Hughes: The latest available information on children who ceased to be looked after at a local authority level can be found in table 15 of the Department's publication on "Children Looked After by Local Authorities, Year Ending 31 March 2004". This can be downloaded from the internet at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DBA/VOL/v000569/index.shtml. This information is not collected centrally at district or constituency level.

Child Care

Maria Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research the Department has undertaken to estimate the level of informal child care provision; and what changes there have been in levels of informal child care provision in the last 30 years.

Beverley Hughes: holding answer 15 February 2006
	The Department has collected national data on the level of use of informal child care provision since 1999. This information was collected in 1999 and 2001 through the "Parents Demand for Childcare" surveys and more recently in the 2004–05 survey "Childcare and Early Years Provision: a Study of Parents' Use, Views and Experiences" (which is due to be published in March 2006). The Department is currently in the process of commissioning a further three annual surveys (for 2006, 2007 and 2008) in the series "Childcare and Early Years Provision: a Study of Parents' Use, Views and Experiences" which will continue to collect national data on the level of informal child care provision.
	The Department has not undertaken any research to estimate what changes there have been in levels of use of informal child care provision in the last 30 years. However, research has been undertaken to assess levels of change over the past seven years (since 1999) and this will continue for the next three years (until 2008).

Child Protection

Nick Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what child protection procedures are in place to ensure that community service sentences carried out in schools do not pose a risk to children.

Maria Eagle: It is important that thorough checks are carried out on those people whose work will bring them into contact with children. Some of these checks are mandatory while others are strongly recommended as good practice.
	The Safeguarding Children: Safer Recruitment and Selection in Education Settings guidance issued in June 2005 states that:
	"Local authorities, schools and further education institutions should ensure that the terms of any contract they let that requires the contractor to employ staff to work with, or provide services for, children for whom the LA, school or FE institution is responsible also requires the contractor to adopt and implement the measures described in the guidance"
	Among other things the measures described include pre appointment checks of List 99 and CRB disclosures.
	Under section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 anyone who is subject to a direction under section 142 of the 2002 Act given on the grounds that they are unsuitable to work with children is also disqualified from working with children. This disqualification is not confined to individuals in paid employment, but also includes unpaid employment, people under contract and volunteers.

Child Protection

Nick Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what advice her Department issues to schools on the interpretation of the criminal record checks of new staff.

Maria Eagle: The guidance "Preventing Unsuitable People from Working with Children and Young Persons in the Education Service" provides advice to employers, including schools, on the interpretation of the criminal record checks. This information is available in paragraphs 41–43 and can be found by accessing the Department's teachernet website: http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=2172.

Child Protection

Nick Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what regulations apply to private tutors in relation in the safeguarding of children.

Maria Eagle: Where an individual is barred from working with children under section 142 of the Education Act 2002 on the grounds that he or she is "unsuitable to work with children", it is a criminal offence to work or seek work in any position that includes training or being in sole charge of a child or children. A person guilty of this offence is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for up to six months and/or a fine and, on indictment, to imprisonment for up to five years and/or a fine.
	The Department would strongly advise parents to verify the credentials of any person employed to provide private tuition for a child, particularly if that person is likely to be alone with the child at any time. For example, parents could ask prospective tutors to provide an enhanced disclosure from the Criminal Records Bureau, where one was available, or references from a recent employer.

Child Protection

Nick Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidelines her Department has issued on the employment of supply teachers in schools in relation to the safeguarding of children.

Maria Eagle: The Department's guidance "Child Protection: Preventing Unsuitable People from Working with Children and Young Persons in the Education Service" issued in June 2005 provides current advice for employers in the education service on preventing unsuitable people from working with children and young persons.
	We have made it clear that CRB checks are strongly recommended as part of the appointment process for anybody who will be working in a school, further education institution or LEA service and that checks on supply teachers should be made when they are recruited from an employment business or supply agency.
	It is a criminal offence for a person who is disqualified from working with children under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 to apply for, offer to do, accept, or do any work with children in a regulated position, as defined in the Act. That work includes any position in which the normal duties include caring for training, supervising or being in sole charge of children, as well as work in any position involving unsupervised contact with children under arrangements made by a responsible person.
	The Secretary of State's statement on 19 January covered the wider safeguarding agenda, as well as focusing on specific settings.
	Of the immediate policy changes announced in the statement, work is in hand to make on-appointment CRB checks compulsory for all new appointments to the schools work force. This will have a direct read-across to staff provided by supply agencies and we are also looking at other options for further tightening vetting procedures for these staff.

Children and Family Court Advisory Service

David Gauke: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures she has taken to improve the (a) service and (b) efficiency of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service; and what savings have been made as a consequence.

Maria Eagle: Measures to improve the service and efficiency of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) and the savings that are expected to be realised are set out in its 2005/07 Business Plan—"Transforming Services—Transforming the Organisation". This is published on the CAFCASS website, at http://www.cafcass.gov.uk/English/Publications/reports/05Dec19BusinessPlan2005.pdf, and a copy will be placed in the Library.
	We will be measuring efficiency gains from a range of specific initiatives which contribute to my Department's Gershon efficiency target, including those secured through efficiency savings made by CAFCASS. These are set out in our Efficiency Technical Note, and a copy will also be placed in the Library. In most cases, the gains are recyclable to frontline services rather than being clawed back by the Department. The Department is reporting progress towards our overall efficiency target through existing departmental reporting processes. We reported progress towards our target in the Department's Autumn Performance Report and will report further progress in the Departmental Annual Report which we expect to publish in April.

Children's Fund

John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the nature of the grants made in 2004–05 through the children's fund.

Beverley Hughes: In 2004–05, children's fund grant totalling £160 million was allocated by the Department for Education and Skills to the 149 children's fund partnerships based in each local authority area in England. This grant was used to fund a range of preventative services aimed at children aged five to 13 addressing social exclusion amongst children, young people and their families. Children's fund partnerships are responsible for setting priorities, making funding decisions and commissioning services according to the needs and priorities of the area. The three most commonly targeted groups were children with "behaviour difficulties", "self-esteem problems" and those "exhibiting antisocial or criminal behaviour".
	The children's fund helps to ensure that preventative approaches to services and planning are embedded into the practice of all statutory and voluntary services for children and young people.

Creationism

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what her policy is on the teaching of creationism as a subject in schools; and if she will make a statement.

Jacqui Smith: Neither creationism nor intelligent design is taught as a subject in schools. The national curriculum programme of study for science at key stage 4 covers evolution. It sets out that pupils should be taught "that the fossil record is evidence for evolution" and also "how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction". Pupils should however be taught about "how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence". Also, the biblical view of creation can be taught in RE lessons, where pupils are taught to consider opposing theories and come to their own, reasoned conclusions. Therefore, although creationism and intelligent design are not part of the national curriculum, they could be covered in these contexts.

Disability Equality Schemes

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in England have published disability equality schemes.

Maria Eagle: The regulations made under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 require local authorities and secondary schools to publish their disability equality scheme by 4 December 2006, and primary schools and special schools by 3 December 2007. The Disability Rights Commission will be providing guidance for schools on the general "duty to promote" and the specific duties, including the duty to publish a disability equality scheme in the autumn 2006.

Education Maintenance Allowance

Nick Hurd: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students aged 16 to 18 years are in receipt of education maintenance allowance in each institution in Hillingdon Local Education Authority.

Maria Eagle: This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council, who operate education maintenance allowances for the DfES and hold the information about take-up of the scheme. Mark Haysom, the Council's chief executive, has written to the hon. Member with the information requested and a copy of his reply has been placed in the House Library.
	Letter from Mark Haysom, dated 14 February 2006
	I am writing in response to your Parliamentary Question that asked "how many students 16–18 years of age are in receipt of educational maintenance allowance in each institution in Hillingdon Local Education Authority?"
	Education Maintenance Allowance is available to 16–19 years olds in Full-Time Further Education. The number of young people in receipt of Education Maintenance Allowance in each institution in Hillingdon Local Education Authority Areas at 30 January is displayed in the attached table.
	I hope this information is helpful and addresses your question. If you would like further details please contact Chris Bradley at the LSC National Office on 0114 207 4512 or christopher.bradley@lsc.gov.uk

Education Productivity

David Gauke: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what methodology she uses to calculate education productivity.

Jacqui Smith: My Department has not calculated education productivity, but has—as part of the Atkinson Review—worked with the Office for National Statistics to improve measures of inputs and outputs, which ONS has used to calculate their own estimates of productivity in the compulsory education system. These estimates are, in broad terms, calculated by dividing outputs (measured by pupil numbers adjusted for school absence and the quality of education output) by inputs (measured by deflated education spending). Since there are various ways of measuring quality, ONS has published several estimates of education productivity—and the underlying methodology—in "Public Service Productivity: Education", in October 2005.
	The link between education inputs and outputs is complex, especially because there are time lags between changes in inputs being fully reflected in outputs. ONS argue that a single number for productivity cannot capture all the costs and benefits of the Government's investment in the education sector. Any estimates—however calculated—therefore need to be interpreted alongside other forms of corroborative evidence on inputs and outputs.

Education White Paper

Ashok Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will publish all the research undertaken to support the structural changes proposed in the White Paper, "Higher Standards, Better Schools for All".

Jacqui Smith: A wide range of research has informed the White Paper and the policies contained within it.
	All the research commissioned by the Department is published on the Department's website.

External Security Services

Nick Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the number of schools that are regularly patrolled by an external security service.

Jacqui Smith: We do not have an estimate of the number of schools using private security patrols. However, guidance on their use is contained in our Managing School Facilities Guide 4, "Improving Security in Schools".

Further Education

Edward Davey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of adult further education 19 plus students in (a) 2004–05 and (b) 2005–06 were (i) full-time and (ii) part-time.

Bill Rammell: In 2004/05 there were 3,477,000 learners aged 19+ in further education (FE) funded by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). Of these learners 11 per cent. (366,000) were full-time 1 and the remaining 89 per cent. (3,111,000) part-time.
	Figures for 2005/06 are not yet available as the LSC academic year which spans 1 August to 31 July has not finished. Initial estimates—based on the numbers enrolled on October 1 2005—will be published in the Statistical First Release (SFR) "Further Education, Work-Based Learning for Young People and Adult and Community Learning—Learner Numbers in England on 1 October 2005' by the LSC on 23 March 2006. Full-year figures for 2005/06 are likely to be published in December 2006.
	1 Full-time students are defined as those enrolled on programmes of at least 450 guided learning hours per year, or for at least 150 guided learning hours per tri-annual period or more than 16 guided learning hours per week for shorter courses.

GCSEs

John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of pupils in (a) each Fresh Start school achieved five or more GCSE passes in 2004–05 and (b) in each of the schools they replaced in the final year of their operation; and if she will make a statement.

Jacqui Smith: The following tables show the numbers and percentages of 15-year-olds achieving five or more passes at GCSE or equivalent level at grades A* to C and A* to G in Fresh Start schools in 2005 and in the schools they replaced in their last year of operation. The Fresh Start initiative was introduced in 1998 to help pupils in schools which were facing intractable problems. Overall the initiative has been a success. The majority of Fresh Start schools have had successful Ofsted inspections.
	The National Audit Office in their report "Improving poorly performing schools in England" (January 2006) found that the nine secondary Fresh Start schools
	"that had reached their fifth year were on average doing more than twice as well as their predecessor schools in terms of the proportion of pupils achieving five A*-C grade GCSEs".
	
		2005 GCSE results for Fresh Start schools and their predecessor schools in their last year of operation
		
			  2005   
			  New school name Number of 15-year-old pupils(118) Number of 15-year-olds achieving 5+ A*-C at GCSE and equivalent Percentage of 15-year-olds achieving 5+ A*-C including GCSE equivalents Former school(s) name Last operational year Number of 15-year-old pupils(118) Number of 15-year-olds achieving 5+ A*-C at GCSE/GNVQ Percentage of 15-year-olds achieving 5+ A*-C including GCSE/GNVQ 
		
		
			 All Saints College 146 58 40 Firfield 1998 0 0 0 
			 Blakelaw 1998 61 4 7 
			 Fir Vale School 132 52 39 Earl Marshal School 1998 92 9 10 
			 The King's CE School 142 52 37 Regis County 1998 129 38 29 
			 Park View Academy 224 104 46 The Langham 1998 177 23 13 
			 Islington Arts and Media 135 59 44 George Orwell School 1999 90 16 18 
			 Kingswood High School 185 83 45 Perronet Thompson School 1999 168 13 8 
			 New College Leicester 252 26 10 New Parks Community College 1999 127 17 13 
			 Bishopsford Community School 159 33 21 Watermeads High School 1999 108 14 13 
			 River Leen School 150 44 29 Alderman Derbyshire School 1999 100 11 11 
			 Kings High School 85 22 26 Kingsleigh 2000 77 8 10 
			 Corby Community College149 28 19 Queen Elizabeth 2000 92 7 8 
			 Beanfield 2000 86 7 8 
			 Parkwood High School116 38 33 Herries 2000 99 14 14 
			 Kings College 122 61 50 Kings Manor 2000 79 8 10 
			 Highcrest Community School90 36 40 Hatters Lane School 2001 67 15 22 
			 The Hadden Park High School 179 42 33 Glaisdale 2001 133 8 6 
			 Hinde House 175 56 32 Bracken Hill 2002 n/a n/a n/a 
			 Jubilee High School 92 28 30 Abbeylands School 2002 99 25 25 
			 Gateway Community 204 25 12 Torrells 2003 118 36 31 
			 St. Chads 2003 99 10 10 
			 Rushall Community 69 12 17 Manor Farm Community School 2003 102 15 15 
		
	
	Note:
	Hinde House is an all through 3–16 school with GCSE results but Bracken Hill was a primary school.
	
		
			  2005   
			 New school name Number of 15-year-old pupils(118) Number of 15-year-olds achieving 5+ A*-G at GCSE and equivalent Percentage of 15-year-olds achieving 5+ A*-G including GCSE equivalents Former school(s) name Last operational year Number of 15-year-old pupils(118) Number of 15-year-olds achieving 5+ A*-G at GCSE/GNVQ Percentage of 15-year-olds achieving 5+ A*-G including GCSE/GNVQ 
		
		
			 All Saints College 146 94 64 Firfield 1998 0 0 0 
			 Blakelaw 1998 61 36 59 
			 Fir Vale School 132 22 92 Earl Marshal School 1998 92 73 79 
			 The King's CE School 142 27 89 Regis County 1998 129 117 91 
			 Park View Academy 224 184 82 The Langham 1998 177 117 64 
			 Islington Arts and Media 135 106 79 George Orwell School 1999 90 67 74 
			 Kingswood High School 185 141 76 Perronet Thompson School 1999 168 117 70 
			 New College Leicester 252 145 58 New Parks Community College 1999 127 71 56 
			 Bishopsford Community School 159 138 87 Watermeads High School 1999 108 83 77 
			 River Leen School 150 102 68 Alderman Derbyshire School 1999 100 81 81 
			 Kings High School 85 71 84 Kingsleigh 2000 77 51 66 
			 Corby Community College149 89 60 Queen Elizabeth 2000 92 63 68 
			 Beanfield 2000 86 55 64 
			 Parkwood High School116 94 81 Herries 2000 99 77 78 
			 Kings College 122 94 77 Kings Manor 2000 79 64 81 
			 Highcrest Community School90 85 94 Hatters Lane School 2001 67 57 85 
			 The Hadden Park High School 179 113 63 Glaisdale 2001 133 66 50 
			 Hinde House 175 148 85 Bracken Hill 2002 n/a n/a n/a 
			 Jubilee High School 92 71 77 Abbeylands School 2002 99 77 78 
			 Gateway Community 204 150 74 Torrells 2003 118 100 85 
			 St. Chads 2003 99 64 65 
			 Rushall Community 69 34 49 Manor Farm Cornmunity School 2003 102 71 70 
		
	
	(118) Age calculated at start of academic year.
	Note:
	Hinde House is an all through 3–16 school with GCSE results but Bracken Hill was a primary school.

Higher Education (Pay)

Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance was given to the Higher Education Funding Council for England on how the second round of Rewarding and Developing Staff funding should be allocated to higher education institutions.

Bill Rammell: holding answer 6 February 2006
	The Department's guidance to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) on the allocation of round 2 Rewarding and Developing Staff (RDS) funding was included in the 22 January 2003 Grant Letter to HEFCE, as follows:
	"The £170 million will be consolidated into institutions' core grants from 2004- 05 and, in addition, I am making available an extra £50 million in 2004–05 and £117 million in 2005–06. I expect the Council to make the new funding conditional on universities and colleges continuing to develop and implement their human resource strategies, and in particular on their taking steps to move towards market supplements or other means of recruiting and retaining staff of the right calibre; and committing themselves to rewarding good performance. I am particularly concerned that good teaching should be identified and rewarded. The Council should also make clear that postdoctoral and other researchers should be included in these strategies. Therefore the Council should ask each institution to revise its human resource strategy to focus on these points, and reiterate the need for improvements in equal opportunities for higher education staff. Where the Council is satisfied that the strategy is sound and is being implemented properly, I look to the Council to add the additional funding to that institution's baseline. Where the Council has doubts, the additional funding should remain earmarked until the revised human resources strategy and its implementation satisfy the Council."
	In accordance with this guidance, HEFCE asked HEIs to submit extended plans to encompass the additional priorities, including approaches to teaching career progression and recognition schemes for relevant staff groups, as well as consolidating work on human resource systems arising from the round 1 investment.
	Allocation of funding to HEIs
	For both rounds of funding, HEFCE allocated the RDS fund to each HEI on a formula basis. Round 1 was based on the institution's teaching and research funding in the previous year, and round 2 based on teaching funding only. Each institution determined its own spend across the identified priority areas.

Higher Education (Pay)

Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what sum has been allocated under the Rewarding and Developing Staff initiative to the Higher Education Funding Council for England's priority area of implementing institutions-wide job evaluation to tackle unequal pay; and what proportion of total Rewarding and Developing Staff funds from rounds 1 and 2 this represents.

Bill Rammell: holding answer 6 February 2006
	The aim of the Rewarding and Developing Staff (RDS) initiative has been to enable higher education institutions (HEIs) to develop their human resource (HR) capability. To secure allocations of funding under round 1 of the initiative (2001–02 to 2003–04), HEIs were asked to submit human resource strategies to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Institutions were asked to address six priority areas: recruitment and retention; staff development and training; equal opportunities targets (including plans for job evaluation); reviews of staffing needs; performance review; and tackling poor performance.
	For both rounds of funding, HEFCE allocated the RDS fund to each HEI on a formula basis. Round 1 was based on the institution's teaching and research funding in the previous year, and round 2 based on teaching funding only. Each institution determined its own spend across the identified priority areas.
	Round 1 and 2 expenditure
	KPMG was commissioned by HEFCE to undertake an evaluation of round 1 of the scheme (2001–02 to 2003–04), its main objective being to assess the impact of the initiative on the development of HR management. KPMG's findings were that the distribution of expenditure between the six priority areas was as follows.
	
		
			  Proportion of expenditure (all HEIs) (2001–02 to 2003–04) 
			 Priority area £ million Percentage 
		
		
			 Staff training and development 82.5 25 
			 Recruitment and retention 66 20 
			 Analysis of staffing needs 59.4 18 
			 Equal Opportunities 42.9 13 
			 Annual Performance Reviews 19.8 6 
			 Poor Performance 13.2 4 
			 Sub-total 283.8 86 
			 Not specified 46.2 14 
			 Total 330 100 
		
	
	Note:
	Data derived from HEIs' Annual Monitoring Statements.
	It is not possible to identify separately expenditure on job evaluation which is included in the category "Equal Opportunities", though the KPMG report identified that 85 per cent. of HEIs were implementing or piloting a job evaluation scheme during round 1. Further details of the KPMG evaluation report can be found at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2005/rd14_05/ Analysis of expenditure in round 2, which finishes in July 2006, will be published in 2007.

Higher Level Teaching Assistants

Edward Davey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many higher level teaching assistants are working in (a) England, (b) each region and (c) each local education authority.

Jacqui Smith: Information on the number of staff working as higher level teaching assistants (HLTA) in schools is not available. The latest data from the Training and Development Agency for Schools shows that approaching 9,300 people have achieved HLTA status to date.

Human Resources Strategy

John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what was the cost of developing the human resource strategy Delivering Through People; which consultancies were involved; what projects have followed; and if she will make a statement.

Maria Eagle: The Department's HR Strategy "Delivering Through People" was launched in April 2003 following consultation with key stakeholders, including staff at all grades and trade union side.
	The Strategy was well received with widespread support for the need to develop a HR vision for the Department that would enable the challenges set out in the Department's Strategic Framework to be met.
	The Strategy was developed, consulted on and implemented by the Department's HR Strategy team, all of whom were permanent employees, as part of their responsibilities at an approximate cost of £30,000. No external consultants were involved at any stage of the project, and there were no other direct costs involved.
	The Strategy was, and continues to be, embedded through a wide range of projects, supported by a Corporate Services Portfolio Board, and HR Business Partners to support the delivery of the Department's five year strategy for Children and Learners.

Information and Communication Technology

David Gauke: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she has taken to increase the use of information and communication technology in higher education; and what assessment she has made of the effect on costs of these steps.

Phil Hope: We have been encouraging and supporting the use of information and communication technology in higher education. Our strategy for the use of ICT across the whole education sector, including higher education, for the next five years and beyond was published last March in "Harnessing Technology: Transforming learning and children's services". The primary objective of using ICT in higher education is to improve and enhance the way institutions fulfil their objectives for providing high quality teaching, learning and research, and all investment decisions will have been judged to be cost-effective.
	We will be measuring efficiency gains from a range of specific initiatives which contribute to our Gershon efficiency target, including savings that accrue from the increased use of ICT. These are set out in our Efficiency Technical Note. In most cases, the gains are recyclable at the frontline into other activities rather than being clawed back by the Department. The Department is reporting progress towards our overall efficiency target through existing departmental reporting processes. We reported progress towards our target in the Department's autumn performance report and will report further progress in the departmental annual report which we expect to publish in April.

IT Systems

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much her Department allocated for school IT systems in each year from 1997 to 2005 in (a) Leicestershire and (b) England.

Phil Hope: The Department does not hold information on specific allocation figures for IT systems in schools within Leicestershire local authority (LA) or England. Funding for schools IT systems will be included within the overall ICT allocation figure for the LA.
	ICT funding allocations for Leicestershire LA since 1998 are detailed in "Funding for ICT in Schools in England" which is available in the House Library. The document also includes total funding allocations for schools in England in each year.

LEA Administration/Finance

David Gauke: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total expenditure on local education authority administration was in 2004–05; and what the budgeted expenditure is for local education authorities in (a) 2005–06 and (b) 2006–07.

Jacqui Smith: For 2004–05 local authorities reported £561 million (net current expenditure) on central administration on their Section 52 Outturn Statements. On their 2005–06 Section 52 Budget Statements local authorities reported £446 million (net expenditure) on statutory/regulatory duties. These figures are not directly comparable as the Departments reporting requirements for both returns are different.
	Data relating to 2006–07 is not due to be collected until April 2006.
	Notes:
	Central administration as reported on section 52 outturn and statutory/regulatory duties as reported on section 52 budget both cover the overall management of the authority's responsibility in relation to education.

Learning and Skills Council

Andrew Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the impact of the reduction in Learning and Skills Council funding to Leicestershire upon community centres and adult learning in Leicestershire.

Bill Rammell: On the 21 October, I made an announcement, setting out the Government's strategic direction for the learning and skills sector for 2006/7 and 2007/8. My main purpose for doing so was to ensure the 2006/07 funding allocations process began with a clear and concise message on the principles that will underpin funding over the next two years. In addition, the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) published "Priorities for Success"—a document that sets out the funding strategy for the next two years in more detail. This document is available on the LSC's website.
	Although more public funding will be going into the sector, we will focus funding even more strongly on key priorities of raising participation and achievement 14–19 and driving down the skills deficit in the adult workforce. I reaffirmed our commitment to safeguard the funding for personal and community development learning in mainstream further education and local authority funded adult education (adult and community learning) with a budget of £210 million in 2006/7.
	The funding available for adult learning for this year and for 2006–08 is sufficient to broadly maintain the total amount of publicly funded adult learning, taking into account the duration of courses. We do expect the re-prioritisation of resources to move to longer and more expensive courses which will lead to a net loss of adult places. The Learning and Skills Council plans to publish information about the initial take-up of learning in England for 2005/06, through a statistical first release in March 2006. My Department does not hold figures for adult learner numbers at local level. The LSC published information in its annual report and accounts for 2004–05 of the numbers of learners gaining skills for life target qualifications for the years 2001–04 for Leicestershire and the total number of adults receiving LSC funded learning in East Midlands in 2004/05. The report is available on the LSC website.

Learning and Skills Council

Anne McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the impact on adult learning in (a) North Yorkshire and (b) England of the changes in funding for the Learning and Skills Council for adult learning since 2004–05.

Bill Rammell: On 21 October, I made an announcement, setting out the Government's strategic direction for the learning and skills sector for 2006/07 and 2007/08. My main purpose for doing so was to ensure the 2006/07 funding allocations process began with a clear and concise message on the principles that will underpin funding over the next two years. In addition, the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) published "Priorities for Success"—a document that sets out the funding strategy for the next two years in more detail. This document is available on the LSC's website. These clear messages develop priorities outlined in my Department's grant letters to the LSC for 2004–05 and 2005–06.
	Although more public funding will be going into the sector, we will focus funding even more strongly on key priorities of raising participation and achievement 14–19 and driving down the skills deficit in the adult workforce. I reaffirmed our commitment to safeguard the funding for personal and community development learning in mainstream further education and local authority funded adult education (adult and community learning) with a budget of £210 million in 2006/07.
	In 2004/05 the number of adult learners remained broadly unchanged compared to the previous year. We expect the Learning and Skills Council to publish information about the initial take-up of learning in England for 2005/06, through a statistical first release in March 2006. My Department does not hold figures for adult learner numbers at local level. The LSC published information in its annual report and accounts for 2004–05 of the numbers of learners gaining skills for life target qualifications for the years 2001 to 2004 for North Yorkshire and the total number of adults receiving LSC funded learning in Yorkshire and Humberside during 2004/05. The report is available on the LSC website.

Local Government Finance

Phil Willis: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the projected allocations are for each local authority for music service provision from the music standards fund for (a) 2006–07 and (b) 2007–08; and what the totals were for each local authority.

Jacqui Smith: The projected allocations for music services from the music standards fund over the next two financial years are set out in the following table.
	The higher levels in 2006–07 reflect an increase of £1.5 million over the baseline to support instrumental and vocal tuition at KS2.
	In addition to music standards fund allocations for music services, local authorities will receive a further £26 million over the next two years for instrumental and vocal tuition at KS2. This money will be devolved to primary and special schools and we would expect a significant proportion to be spent by schools on buying back music service provision.
	
		
			   £ 
			  2006–07 2007–08 
		
		
			 Corporation of London 6,753 1,753 
			 Camden 383,500 373,500 
			 Greenwich 274,228 264,228 
			 Hackney 370,380 360,380 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 167,481 157,481 
			 Islington 232,002 222,002 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 95,513 85,513 
			 Lambeth 243,044 233,044 
			 Lewisham 287,833 277,833 
			 Southwark 371,237 361,237 
			 Tower Hamlets 414,449 404,449 
			 Wandsworth 273,101 263,101 
			 Westminster 373,500 363,500 
			 Barking 227,091 217,091 
			 Barnet 203,251 193,251 
			 Bexley 220,000 210,000 
			 Brent 264,159 254,159 
			 Bromley 186,838 176,838 
			 Croydon 267,764 257,764 
			 Ealing 345,508 335,508 
			 Enfield 299,111 289,111 
			 Haringey 357,000 347,000 
			 Harrow 168,000 158,000 
			 Havering 170,286 160,286 
			 Hillingdon 213,534 203,534 
			 Hounslow 370,000 360,000 
			 Kingston Upon Thames 153,000 143,000 
			 Merton 178,221 168,221 
			 Newham 523,737 513,737 
			 Red bridge 221,511 211,511 
			 Richmond Upon Thames 169,600 159,600 
			 Sutton 141,322 131,322 
			 Waltham Forest 279,225 269,225 
			 Birmingham 1,564,904 1,554,904 
			 Coventry 357,088 347,088 
			 Dudley 591,435 581,435 
			 Sandwell 763,000 753,000 
			 Solihull 313,000 303,000 
			 Walsall 722,400 712,400 
			 Wolverhampton 292,699 282,699 
			 Knowsley 286,243 276,243 
			 Liverpool 604,080 594,080 
			 St. Helens 151,541 141,541 
			 Sefton 606,540 596,540 
			 Wirral 570,800 560,800 
			 Bolton 568,500 558,500 
			 Bury 140,723 130,723 
			 Manchester 1,365,000 1,355,000 
			 Oldham 381,655 371,655 
			 Rochdale 205,232 195,232 
			 Salford 399,398 389,398 
			 Stockport 241,000 231,000 
			 Tameside 210,007 200,007 
			 Trafford 178,989 168,989 
			 Wigan 228,220 218,220 
			 Barnsley 226,336 216,336 
			 Doncaster 778,912 768,912 
			 Rotherham 630,920 620,920 
			 Sheffield 374,293 364,293 
			 Bradford 503,306 493,306 
			 Calderdale 231,546 221,546 
			 Kirklees 413,553 403,553 
			 Leeds 545,454 535,454 
			 Wakefield 781,770 771,770 
			 Gateshead 508,590 498,590 
			 Newcastle Upon Tyne 413,926 403,926 
			 North Tyneside 213,983 203,983 
			 South Tyneside 268,000 258,000 
			 Sunderland 317,574 307,574 
			 Isles Of Scilly 0 0 
			 Bath and North East Somerset 197,000 187,000 
			 Bristol 301,541 291,541 
			 North Somerset 328,000 318,000 
			 South Gloucestershire 295,900 285,900 
			 Hartlepool 10,000 0 
			 Middlesbrough 10,000 0 
			 Redcar and Cleveland 10,000 0 
			 Stockton-on-Tees 1,346,700 1,336,700 
			 Kingston-upon- Hull 522,000 512,000 
			 East Riding of Yorkshire 567,000 557,000 
			 North East Lincolnshire 319,000 309,000 
			 North Lincolnshire 200,000 190,000 
			 North Yorkshire 733,000 723,000 
			 York 418,320 408,320 
			 Bedfordshire 543,000 533,000 
			 Luton 861,750 851,750 
			 Buckinghamshire 905,020 895,020 
			 Milton Keynes 290,000 280,000 
			 Derbyshire 955,642 945,642 
			 Derby City 10,000 0 
			 Dorset 254,600 244,600 
			 Poole 94,100 84,100 
			 Bournemouth 91,700 81,700 
			 Durham 840,000 830,000 
			 Darlington 187,000 177,000 
			 East Sussex 945,774 935,774 
			 Brighton and Hove 340,580 330,580 
			 Hampshire 1,095,380 1,085,380 
			 Portsmouth 157,000 147,000 
			 Southampton 319,100 309,100 
			 Leicestershire 471,000 461,000 
			 Leicester City 179,400 169,400 
			 Rutland 30,169 20,169 
			 Staffordshire 1,064,000 1,054,000 
			 Stoke-on-Trent 274,374 264,374 
			 Wiltshire 288,000 278,000 
			 Swindon 290,800 280,800 
			 Bracknell Forest 146,760 136,760 
			 Windsor and Maidenhead 188,000 178,000 
			 West Berkshire 217,100 207,100 
			 Reading 160,000 150,000 
			 Slough 231,000 221,000 
			 Wokingham 200,000 190,000 
			 Cambridgeshire 414,000 404,000 
			 Peterborough 149,002 139,002 
			 Cheshire 492,353 482,353 
			 Halton 135,429 125,429 
			 Warrington 147,806 137,806 
			 Devon 591,400 581,400 
			 Plymouth 182,200 172,200 
			 Torbay 75,000 65,000 
			 Essex 1,132,535 1,122,535 
			 Southend-on-Sea 218,229 208,229 
			 Thurrock 405,903 395,903 
			 Herefordshire 229,710 219,710 
			 Worcestershire 897,000 887,000 
			 Kent 1,139,485 1,129,485 
			 Medway 219,588 209,588 
			 Lancashire 1,226,889 1,216,889 
			 Blackburn with Darwen 420,000 410,000 
			 Blackpool 132,293 122,293 
			 Nottinghamshire 619,365 609,365 
			 Nottingham City 333,043 323,043 
			 Shropshire 188,988 178,988 
			 Telford and Wrekin 146,436 136,436 
			 Cornwall 528,000 518,000 
			 Cumbria 643,800 633,800 
			 Gloucestershire 477,176 467,176 
			 Hertfordshire 782,448 772,448 
			 Isle of Wight 350,800 340,800 
			 Lincolnshire 553,000 543,000 
			 Norfolk 605,195 595,195 
			 Northamptonshire 845,000 835,000 
			 Northumberland 281,243 271,243 
			 Oxfordshire 424,000 414,000 
			 Somerset 737,450 727,450 
			 Suffolk 482,626 472,626 
			 Surrey 528,669 518,669 
			 Warwickshire 1,016,000 1,006,000 
			 West Sussex 1,004,000 994,000

Looked-after Children

David Kidney: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what additional safeguards local authorities are required to put in place for looked-after children placed out of area; and what assessment she has made of whether these safeguards are effective.

Maria Eagle: The same statutory safeguards for looked-after children apply regardless of where the child is living. All looked-after children, including those placed out-of-authority, are required under the Children Act 1989 to have an individual care plan, which is subject to a regular statutory review overseen by an independent reviewing officer. In addition, an authority responsible for looking after a child which places the child in another area is required to inform the local authority and the primary care trust (or if there is no PCT, the health authority) for the area in which the child is now living. The placing authority is also required to notify the PCT where the child has been living that the child is leaving their area.
	Last year, the Department conducted a national project on out-of-authority placements for looked-after children. We know from that project that the system for notifying local authorities and PCTs is not working as effectively as it should. That is why we have undertaken to consider how best to improve this system, alongside wider work both to reduce local authorities' dependence on out-of-authority placements and to improve outcomes for looked-after children who are placed out-of-authority. This work will be taken forward as part of the wide-ranging proposals for transforming outcomes for looked-after children which we announced in the recent White Paper "Higher Standards, Better Schools for All".

Media Coverage

Edward Davey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what analysis her Department has conducted of national media coverage of education issues in the past 12 months.

Bill Rammell: The DfES does not undertake continuous analysis of national media coverage of education issues. Over the past 12 months it has conducted evaluation of national, regional, specialist and consumer media coverage of communications campaigns on Aimhigher, Aimhigher Student Finance, Educational Maintenance Allowances, Foundation Degrees and Teenage Pregnancy. It has also used media evaluation to assess the effectiveness of a partnership with Mersey TV, and undertaken national and specialist media evaluation around the publication of the White Paper "Higher Standards, Better Schools for All".

Post-16 Education

Stephen Hepburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school-leavers in (a) the Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear, (d) the North East and (e) England (i) remained and (ii) did not remain in education after their GCSEs in each year since 1997.

Jacqui Smith: The percentage of 16-year-olds in full-time education in England at the end of 2004 was estimated to be 74.2 per cent.—the highest ever rate. Figures on participation in education by young people are not available for Parliamentary Constituencies, but are available for local authorities—including South Tyneside, and for local Learning and Skills Council areas including Tyne and Wear. These were published alongside figures for the North East and England in the Statistical First Release "Participation in education and training by 16 and 17 year olds in each local area in England"—SFR11/2005 on 31 March 2005.
	The publication is accessible on the DfES website via the link, http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000568/index.shtml. The specific LEA figures are available through the following link: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000568/SFR11-2005tables_lea.xls and specific local LSC figures through http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000568/SFR11-2005tables_lsc.xls.

Primary School Administration

John Hemming: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will take steps to reduce the rate at which changes to the administrative procedures undertaken by head teachers of primary schools are introduced.

Jacqui Smith: We recognise that we ask a lot of primary school leaders. We are determined though that every primary school should provide all their children, whatever their background, with the support they need to be healthy; stay safe; enjoy and achieve; make a positive contribution; develop as confident and enthusiastic learners; and grasp the basic skills of literacy and numeracy.
	Those working in and with our primary schools are making a tremendous contribution towards raising standards and improving the lives of our children. Primary schools have made significant progress in recent years and should be pleased with this progress. However, there is still much to be done. For example, there are still too many 11-year-olds who do not reach the levels in reading, writing, and mathematics they need to flourish in secondary school.
	Children only get one chance to start their schooling. That is why school improvement needs to happen as quickly as possible. At the same time we know that the pace of change has to be manageable. We have a range of measures in place and in development to make sure that is the case.
	First, for the contractual amendments that are freeing teachers to teach and school leaders to lead we worked more closely than ever before with the school workforce unions, employers and professional associations to phase changes in over a three year period.
	Second, on teachers' pay and conditions we take the advice of the independent School Teachers Review Body on changes needed to put in place the right incentives for teachers to focus on continuously improving their teaching and learning.
	Third, we are developing a new relationship with schools. From next year primary schools will work with a School Improvement Partner, agreeing school improvement priorities in a single school plan and accounting for them through streamlined accountability arrangements. Already we have cut Ofsted inspections from a week to a couple of days.
	Fourth, within the Department we have introduced arrangements that resulted last year in six surveys of schools being incorporated into a single school census where the information is harvested from school management systems automatically. We have stopped sending hard copies of documents to school informing them electronically of what is available and leaving it to them to order only those they need and want, in the quantities and at the time they want them. We trimmed 38 requests for new data from schools to five and we more than halved the number of new initiatives for schools in 2005.
	Fifth, in our recent White Paper we underlined the importance of external scrutiny of the way we deliver new policies by extending the remit of the Implementation Review Unit (IRU) for a further two years to 2008. This is an independent panel of serving senior school practitioners who challenge the Department to ensure our implementation plans are practicable and free from unnecessary burdens.
	The view of the IRU is that school leaders themselves can do a great deal to manage their own workload. The IRU themselves, have issued to all schools a set of principles head teachers might adopt. If followed, these principles will help heads to ensure that their approach to national and local initiatives gives maximum benefit to their own school with the minimum burden. A copy of those principles is as follows.
	Implementation Review Unit (IRU)
	Reducing bureaucracy in schools: principles for schools
	The IRU is working with the DfES, local authorities and other partner organisations to encourage them to reduce their bureaucratic impact on schools and to help them find ways of doing so. There are, however, approaches schools can take themselves which will help lessen the problem of bureaucracy.
	These approaches are embodied in the following principles which, if applied by schools, will contribute to reducing their bureaucratic burdens and which, we consider, will have a positive impact on staff throughout the school.
	We believe that head teachers and governors should:
	1. adopt non-mandatory guidance only where they consider it to be of relevance to their schools;
	2. question the need for non-statutory data and/or information, choosing themselves whether to provide it;
	3. challenge requests to provide duplicate data and/or information;
	4. identify and have regard to the workload implications for themselves and their staff and the impact on the school of:
	complying with non-statutory requests for information and data,
	embarking on specialist programmes and/or other initiatives;
	5. identify resources (including financial) available within the school, or elsewhere, to support complying with non-statutory requests/embarking on specialist programmes, etc;
	6. assess (and reduce) the bureaucracy associated with the management of meetings, internal communications and the preparation of school documentation, including the completion of self evaluation forms;
	7. ensure a minimalist approach towards their school's own bureaucratic systems and processes, so as to reduce their impact on both teaching and support staff;
	8. follow the principle that their own new policies and initiatives 1 should be instead of, and not additional to, existing ones;
	9. co-operate with the DfES, local authorities and partner agencies in discussing new policies and initiatives, including assisting with the preparation of impact assessments and looking at resource implications.
	1 The term "new policies and initiatives" also embraces new strategies, schemes and directives and changes to existing ones.

School Admissions

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will issue best practice guidance to assist promoters of new schools in designing admission policies.

Jacqui Smith: The School Admissions Code of Practice, in force since April 1999, gives guidance on setting admission policies for schools, including new schools established by promoters. We shall be revising the code following the forthcoming Education Bill. Under arrangements to be introduced in the forthcoming Bill, subject to Parliamentary agreement, promoters will be expected to "act in accordance" with the code in determining their admission arrangements and decision makers will have the power to modify arrangements to ensure that this is the case. Once admission arrangements have been approved, they will not be able to be changed for a period of three years.

School Assets

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the merits of leaving local authorities in control of school assets in the context of the Education White Paper.

Jacqui Smith: While many local authorities undoubtedly do a good job in managing their school assets, we see considerable advantages to all sides in our proposals in "Higher Standards, Better Schools for All" to encourage more school to own their assets directly. For schools, the benefits of acquiring foundation status include that they will gain direct responsibility for improving their buildings and land. This is an important strand in developing a strong school ethos.
	Local authorities will benefit from having a new role of commissioning rather than providing education. They will have a new duty to promote choice, diversity and fair access for school places. This means that they still retain responsibility for a strategic overview of capital and asset matters. For instance, they will develop the educational vision and investment plans for their Building Schools for the Future projects.
	Currently, local authorities do not own the assets of the 875 existing foundation schools, of over 2,600 voluntary controlled schools, or of over 4,300 voluntary aided schools, except usually their playing fields. In all, local authorities do not now own the assets of more than a third of all maintained schools. A fifth of all authorities already work successfully with over half their secondary schools either voluntary aided or foundation.

School Finance

James Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average financial position of (a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools was in each local education authority at the latest available date.

Jacqui Smith: holding answer 16 February 2006
	The available information is contained within the following table.
	
		Average(141) revenue balance(142)(143) for a local authority maintained primary and secondary school(144) as at 31 March 2005 £ per school
		
			 Local authority name Average (mean)(141) revenue balance(142)(143) per LA maintained primary school(144) Average (mean)(141) revenue balance(142)(143) per LA maintained secondary school(144) 
		
		
			 England 49,565 151,909 
			 Barking and Dagenham 42,519 94,800 
			 Barnet 61,832 149,701 
			 Barnsley 40,613 294,944 
			 Bath and NE Somerset 46,362 152,284 
			 Bedfordshire 32,721 53,640 
			 Bexley 64,343 293,338 
			 Birmingham 79,782 229,272 
			 Blackburn 61,594 392,817 
			 Blackpool 110,061 97,681 
			 Bolton 38,075 –81,165 
			 Bournemouth 65,308 15,615 
			 Bracknell Forest 39,937 172,286 
			 Bradford 53,062 –202 
			 Brent 69,986 4,854 
			 Brighton and Hove NB UG1 26,053 207,320 
			 Bristol City 42,327 53,594 
			 Bromley 24,822 116,705 
			 Buckinghamshire 29,172 –22,226 
			 Bury 51,854 136,678 
			 Calderdale 47,391 225,230 
			 Cambridgeshire 47,242 101,243 
			 Camden 93,604 258,177 
			 Cheshire 38,961 175,632 
			 City of Derby 44,882 63,287 
			 City of Nottingham 39,258 22,180 
			 City of Westminster 80,172 –288,025 
			 Cornwall 47,224 219,634 
			 Corporation of London 41,917 n/a 
			 Coventry 70,778 259,229 
			 Croydon 60,459 271,013 
			 Cumbria 25,595 32,834 
			 Darlington 57,642 97,699 
			 Derbyshire 39,653 143,719 
			 Devon 19,751 148,072 
			 Doncaster 47,571 174,859 
			 Dorset 32,300 59,799 
			 Dudley 81,879 152,769 
			 Durham 28,426 176,775 
			 Ealing 87,588 660,976 
			 East Riding 37,025 151,068 
			 East Sussex NB UG1 39,490 134,587 
			 Enfield 118,763 288,425 
			 Essex 59,721 132,664 
			 Gateshead 75,233 414,120 
			 Gloucestershire 37,070 123,157 
			 Greenwich 97,828 335,295 
			 Hackney 108,144 476,684 
			 Halton 69,697 557,184 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 106,690 366,310 
			 Hampshire 44,751 175,618 
			 Haringey 89,850 299,914 
			 Harrow 119,073 230,855 
			 Hartlepool 85,694 280,084 
			 Havering 68,674 157,472 
			 Herefordshire 59,351 147,518 
			 Hertfordshire 58,231 167,761 
			 Hillingdon 103,696 119,333 
			 Hounslow 77,552 136,726 
			 Isle of Wight 38,334 92,831 
			 Isles of Scilly 24,601 n/a 
			 Islington 52,090 –40,781 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 85,462 171,873 
			 Kent 65,029 220,111 
			 Kingston upon Hull (Hull City) 45,987 90,285 
			 Kingston-upon-Thames 87,898 168,887 
			 Kirklees 55,822 148,696 
			 Knowsley 27,979 165,804 
			 Lambeth 100,547 204,415 
			 Lancashire 60,243 185,790 
			 Leeds 31,975 43,531 
			 Leicester City 71,505 247,767 
			 Leicestershire 38,004 103,212 
			 Lewisham 72,924 272,089 
			 Lincolnshire 32,512 77,001 
			 Liverpool 54,307 111,094 
			 Luton 70,529 146,855 
			 Manchester 56,986 34,031 
			 Medway 79,102 187,011 
			 Merton 41,491 93,271 
			 Middlesbrough 85,063 205,696 
			 Milton Keynes 63,737 226,828 
			 Newcastle-upon-Tyne 45,279 224,720 
			 Newham 99,685 215.306 
			 Norfolk 47,407 166,977 
			 North East Lincolnshire 42,498 195,718 
			 North Lincolnshire 34,787 80,303 
			 North Somerset 44,544 127,957 
			 North Tyneside 19,689 122,703 
			 North Yorkshire 35,039 161,457 
			 Northamptonshire 53,719 155,700 
			 Northumberland 26,603 83,627 
			 Nottinghamshire 40,002 156,379 
			 Oldham 55,914 140,724 
			 Oxfordshire 22,137 76,423 
			 Peterborough 82,517 139,169 
			 Plymouth 41,288 260,125 
			 Poole 65,183 191,230 
			 Portsmouth 55,088 185,011 
			 Reading 64,834 –81,698 
			 Redbridge 67,877 200,146 
			 Redcar and Cleveland 72,119 190,071 
			 Richmond-upon-Thames 69,306 147,652 
			 Rochdale 54,517 165,676 
			 Rotherham 27,178 117,617 
			 Rutland 23,848 60,901 
			 Salford 26,422 111,668 
			 Sandwell 75,806 351,897 
			 Sefton 89,275 208,464 
			 Sheffield 37,925 126,009 
			 Shropshire 24,743 75,807 
			 Slough 44,567 226,108 
			 Solihull 44,916 184,976 
			 Somerset 30,104 161,854 
			 South Gloucestershire 39,105 213,717 
			 South Tyneside 36,181 212,457 
			 Southampton 49,856 114,068 
			 Southend 53,767 240,379 
			 Southwark 91,784 140,618 
			 St. Helens 52,565 275,177 
			 Staffordshire 36,861 190,808 
			 Stockport 49,925 90,423 
			 Stockton-on-Tees 51,172 195,922 
			 Stoke-on-Trent 55,516 264,515 
			 Suffolk 39,715 85,086 
			 Sunderland 53,101 226,497 
			 Surrey 57,657 75,412 
			 Sutton 73,382 174,768 
			 Swindon 55,009 106,319 
			 Tameside 39,574 103,323 
			 The Wrekin 27,416 106,122 
			 Thurrock 59,828 176,693 
			 Torbay 47,107 203,296 
			 Tower Hamlets 122,802 503,383 
			 Trafford 28,992 188,423 
			 Wakefield 25,167 143,020 
			 Walsall 80,490 150,724 
			 Waltham Forest 80,110 222,981 
			 Wandsworth 69,852 344,714 
			 Warrington 26,102 194,122 
			 Warwickshire 30,450 105,253 
			 West Berkshire 29,910 55,355 
			 West Sussex 60,933 232,074 
			 Wigan 52,099 122,413 
			 Wiltshire 27,754 112,420 
			 Windsor and Maidenhead 22,441 63,062 
			 Wirral 29,674 129,508 
			 Wokingham 27,461 66,756 
			 Wolverhampton 61,129 143,821 
			 Worcestershire 37,096 105,204 
			 York City 59,009 81,551 
		
	
	n/a—figures not available.
	(141) The average (mean) revenue balance for a local authority is calculated as the combination of the total revenue balance of all the schools included by the local authority on their Section 52 Outturn Statement (Table B) divided by the number of schools reported on the statement.
	(142) A school's total revenue balance is calculated from the combination of any unspent allocations (including unspent Standards Fund grants) and the cumulative balance of income less expenditure from revenue funding sources during the financial year and any balances carried forward from previous years. This is drawn by adding together the committed revenue balance and uncommitted revenue balance columns from local authorities 2004–05 Section 52 Outturn Statements (Table B).
	(143) Financial data used to determine revenue budgets is rounded to the nearest pound.
	(144) Schools have been allocated to primary and secondary phases of education according to what phase they have been reported under in their Section 52 Outturn Statement.
	Note:
	Data reported using cash terms figures as reported by local authorities as at 14 February 2006.

School Maintenance

David Gauke: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 
	(1)  what steps she has taken to ensure improved efficiency in respect of the procurement of school maintenance; and what savings have been made as a consequence;
	(2)  what assessment she has made of savings made as a consequence of the schools capital and building schools for the future programmes.

Jacqui Smith: By moving from "patch and mend" to long-term strategic capital investment, as in building schools for the future, we expect there to be significant savings over time for both public and private sectors, including in procurement of school maintenance.
	Savings should come, for example, from simplified bidding, paperwork and bureaucracy, improved local asset management, grouped procurement and economies of scale, new joint venture structures, standardisation of processes and components, encouraging the market for the private sector, innovation in construction, benchmarking and testing of supply chains, improvements in the sustainability and energy efficiency of buildings, or reductions in poorly maintained or life-expired building stock.
	The first three waves of investment through building schools for the future are gaining momentum, with good evidence of market engagement. This should result in innovation and efficiency savings across the traditional supply chains, which in turn will now be benchmarked nationally, regionally and locally to ensure value for money.
	We will be measuring efficiency gains from a range of specific initiatives which contribute to our Gershon efficiency target, including our capital programmes. These are set out in our efficiency technical note. In most cases, the gains are recyclable at the frontline into other activities rather than being clawed back by the Department. The Department is reporting progress towards our overall efficiency target through existing departmental reporting processes. We reported progress towards our target in the Department's autumn performance report and will report further progress in the departmental annual report which we expect to publish in April.

School Paying Fields

Eric Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 
	(1)  what records are kept by her Department of the (a) number and (b) area of school playing fields in England;
	(2)  whether there is a register of school playing fields;
	(3)  what criteria are used by her Department to assess the need for school playing fields;
	(4)  what criteria are used by her Department to determine whether a school playing field can be released for change of use.

Jacqui Smith: Data on school playing fields have been supplied to the Department by local education authorities in 2001 and 2003. However, because the data were incomplete and of variable quality, it is not possible to accurately assess the number and area of school playing fields.
	The Department's Building Bulletins 98 and 99 contain the recommendations on what proportion of a schools total area should be allocated to the provision of various areas of playing fields. The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 require schools to have access to team game playing fields proportionate to their pupil numbers and type. Copies of the Buildings Bulletins and the regulations setting out the minimum standards for team game playing fields can be downloaded from the Departments website: www.teachernet.gov.uk.
	Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 prevents local authorities and governing bodies from disposing, or changing the use, of school playing fields, without the prior consent of the Secretary of State. The criteria which applications are assessed fall under three main headings which may be described as schools' needs, community use, and finance. Normally, applications to dispose, or change the use, of school playing fields will only be approved in the exceptional circumstances that fulfil these criteria. The Department's Guidance 1017/2004: "The Protection of School Playing Fields and Land for Academies" set out the measures to underpin the Government's resolve to protect school playing fields. This guidance can also be accessed and downloaded from the Department's website.

Schools Estate

Kelvin Hopkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the capital value is of the land and buildings occupied by state secondary schools in England.

Jacqui Smith: The capital replacement value of maintained secondary school buildings is estimated to be in the range of £50 to £55 billion. The capital value of land occupied by secondary schools building is not held centrally.

Sex Education

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what powers parents have to find out the content of their children's sex education in schools.

Jacqui Smith: All maintained schools are required to have an up-to-date written policy on sex education available to parents for inspection. This requirement is outlined in "Sex and Relationship Education Guidance" (DfES 2000) to which all maintained schools are obliged to have regard. In addition, we have explained the rights of parents in the "SRE and Parents" leaflet and on the DfES Parents Centre website.

Skills Training

Edward Miliband: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people aged (a) 30 to 39 years, (b) 40 to 49 years and (c) 50 years and over received skills training in (i) South Yorkshire and (ii) Doncaster North constituency in each year since 1997.

Phil Hope: The following table shows estimates of the numbers and percentage of people receiving job-related training in South Yorkshire and Doncaster North constituency. It is based on data from the Local Labour Force Survey which is only available from 2001–02. For the Doncaster North constituency, the survey sample was too small to present data by the age groups requested and they have been amalgamated.
	
		Percentage of people receiving job-related training in the last four weeks(149)
		
			  2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 
			  Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage 
		
		
			 Doncaster North  
			 30–59/64 (150)2,259 (150)7 (150)3,576 (150)11 (150)4,847 (150)13 (150)3,774 (150)10 
			 16–59/64 Working age(151) (150)4,785 (150)10 (150)4,897 (150)11 (150)6,673 (150)14 (150)6,680 (150)14 
			  
			 South Yorkshire  
			 30–39 30,138 15.7 27,786 14.5 34,409 18.0 33,058 17.7 
			 40–49 20,857 12.4 21,581 12.5 25,629 14.4 25,242 13.9 
			 50–59/64 9,160 4.8 12,492 6.6 13,741 7.2 15,182 8.0 
			 16–59/64 Working age(152) 101,328 13.1 114,290 14.8 129,491 16.7 124,950 16.1 
		
	
	(149) Skills training is assumed to be job-related training for current and future jobs in the four weeks prior to interview.
	(150) These figures indicate small sample sizes and are therefore subject to a higher degree of sampling variability. They should be treated with caution and in particular, changes from year-to-year should not be used in isolation from the figures for a run of years.
	(151) There were approximately 47,000 16–59/64-year-olds in Doncaster North in 2004–05.
	(152) There were approximately 776,000 16–59/64-year-olds in South Yorkshire in 2004–05.

Skills Training

John Cummings: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the provision of skills training in Easington constituency; and what opportunities there are for the training of disabled workers.

Phil Hope: This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. Mark Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive has written to my hon. Friend with this information and a copy of his reply has been placed in the House Library.
	The Government's Skills Strategy, "21st Century Skills: Realising Our Potential" (July 2003) and "Skills: Getting on in business, getting on at work" (March 2005), set out our plans for increasing opportunities and entitlement to skills training and for promoting equality of opportunity within this.
	Letter from Mark Haysom, dated 15 February 2006
	I write in response to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (this letter has been passed to myself by Phil Hope MP) regarding the provision of skills training in Easington constituency and what opportunities there are for the training of disabled workers.
	There are a number of LSC funded providers of skills training for residents in the District of Easington. The main provider is East Durham and Houghall Community College. The college offers a wide range of vocational provision, ranging from entry/level one through to level two and three, with local access to Higher Education via a partnership with Sunderland University.
	Four main providers offer Work-based Learning provision in the area. East Durham & Houghall Community College is the largest with over 350 places available. The other local providers are Springboard, Shape Training and Include. In addition, national providers such as CITB and Remit offer opportunities in the District.
	Durham County Council offer a wide range of adult learning courses through their "Education in the Community" programme. Courses are particularly aimed at encouraging individuals who have been out of learning for a while, to sample non accredited learning in a supportive atmosphere before moving on to more formal qualifications if they wish. Other opportunities available in the area funded by the LSC include Learndirect, Aim High, the Employer Training Pilot (ETP) and several ESF funded projects.
	With respect to opportunities for the training of disabled workers, all the above provision is inclusive and open to anyone including those with disabilities. Nine per cent of learners (1,704 out of 18,858) at East Durham and Houghall Community College, the biggest provider, disclose they have a disability.
	These learners join mainstream provision and are provided with additional support appropriate to their individual needs, funded through LSC learner support funds. Classes are accessible to those with physical disabilities, and teaching and learning materials are adapted as appropriate for individual needs.
	The college has links with Glendene special school and the Shinwell Centre, both of which cater for disabled learners. Transport for the disabled is available in the form of two adapted minibuses. The college is also developing best practice when dealing with learners with emotional learning difficulties for the whole of County Durham.
	I trust this is helpful.

Special Educational Needs

John Hemming: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding was available for special educational needs in primary schools in the last year for which figures are available; and if she will take steps to increase such funding.

Maria Eagle: During the 2005–06 financial year, local authorities in England budgeted net expenditure of £4.1 billion for the provision of education for children with special educational needs (SEN). Certain elements of this budgeted expenditure are retained centrally by the local authority and SEN funding cannot be attributed to a particular phase of education. An overall figure for the budgeted net expenditure for special educational needs in primary schools is not therefore available. However, expenditure can be broken down as shown in the following table.
	It is for local authorities to make appropriate provision for all pupils in their area, including primary pupils with SEN, distributing funding to their schools through locally agreed funding formulae. All local authorities have benefited from the significant increases in funding that this Government have committed to education since 1997 and are set to receive an average increase of 14 per cent. per pupil in dedicated schools grant over the next two years.
	
		The Education (Budget Statements) (England) Regulations 2005, budgeted expenditure on the provision of education for children with special educational needs1, 2, 3, 4 during 2005–06, provisional cash terms figures(157)as reported by local authorities as at the 17 February 2006 £
		
			  Nursery Primary Secondary Special 
		
		
			 SEN element of the schools budget(153) 18,721,836 282,141,763 205,523,034 616,039,625 
			 Funding delegated to LA maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools identified as "Notional SEN"(154) 9,500,929 931,756,617 712,773,582 — 
			 Individual Schools Budget (ISB) for special schools(155) — — — 1,243,203.720 
			 Budgeted SEN expenditure by phase 28,222,764 1,213,898,379 918,296,615 1,859,243,345 
			 Budgeted central spend by LAs on SEN(156) — — — — 
			 Total Budgeted expenditure on SEN — — — — 
		
	
	
		
			£ 
			  Gross Income Net 
		
		
			 SEN element of the schools budget(153) 1,122,426,257 162,296,536 960,129,721 
			 Funding delegated to LA maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools identified as "Notional SEN"(154) 1,654,031,127 — 1,654,031,127 
			 Individual Schools Budget (ISB) for special schools(155) 1,243,203,720 — 1,243,203,720 
			 Budgeted SEN expenditure by phase 4,019,661,104 162,296,536 3,857,364,568 
			 Budgeted central spend by LAs on SEN(156) 277,905,733 14,916,874 262,988,859 
			 Total Budgeted expenditure on SEN 4,297,566,837 177,213,410 4,120,353,427 
		
	
	(153) The SEN element of the schools budget includes planned expenditure on the provision for pupils with statements and the provision for non-statemented pupils with SEN, support for inclusion, inter authority recoupment and fees for pupils at independent special schools and abroad.
	(154) Funding delegated to LA maintained nursery, primary and special schools are only indicative of the amount that might be spent by schools on SEN.
	(155) The ISB for special schools will include some general education costs for pupils with SEN in addition to those costs specifically for SEN.
	(156) The budgeted central spend by local authorities on SEN includes planned expenditure on educational psychology service, local authority functions in relation to child protection, therapies and other health-related services, parent partnership, guidance and information, the monitoring of SEN provision and SEN administration, assessment and co-ordination. Budgeted central expenditure cannot be attributed to a particular phase of education.
	Notes:
	1. 2005–06 data is provisional and is subject to change by the local authority.
	2. In addition to the figures in the table, local authorities also budget net expenditure of £500 million for SEN transport.
	Source:
	The data are drawn from local authorities 2005–06 Section 52 Budget Statements (Tables 1 and 2) submitted to the DfES.

Special Educational Needs

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to promote more effective (a) measurement of and (b) accountability for progress made by pupils with special educational needs across a wide range of abilities.

Maria Eagle: The Special Educational Needs (SEN) Code of Practice provides practical advice to local authorities, maintained schools and other settings on their statutory duties to identify, assess and make provision for children's SEN. The code helps these bodies make effective decisions but it does not, and could not, tell them what to do in each individual case. The code sets out a graduated approach to providing support. This involves regular reviews of the impact, on a child's progress, of support that is additional to or different from that which is provided as part of the school's usual differentiated curriculum offer and strategies.
	The SEN Code states that all children with SEN should be offered full access to a broad, balanced and relevant education, including the National Curriculum (NC). Pupil progress is assessed at the end of each key stage against the NC levels and this applies to pupils both with and without SEN. Pupils working below level 1 of the NC can be assessed using the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority guidance: "Planning, teaching, and assessing the curriculum for pupils with learning difficulties", which provides eight level descriptions leading up to NC level 1.
	The development of the New Relationship with Schools brings a focus on how well schools meet the needs of all their pupils. All schools will carry out an annual self-evaluation and publish a single plan setting out their priorities for improvement in which they will need to show how all their pupils are achieving. This process will highlight any gaps in achievement between different groups of children, which will then be discussed with a locally appointed School Improvement Partner.

Sprinkler Systems

Nick Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 
	(1)  what is her Department's policy on the inclusion of sprinkler systems in new schools;
	(2)  if she will make regulations to ensure that newly built schools have sprinkler systems.

Jacqui Smith: Since April 2001, all new building work at schools has been subject to the Building Regulations, which are the responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM). These regulations do not currently require the installation of sprinklers in schools, but that does not prohibit local education authorities from specifying their use.
	We believe that the decision on whether to install sprinklers is best taken locally. For example, in our Managing School Facilities Guide 6, "Fire Safety", we give the example of a school in an area of high arson risk as being a suitable candidate for having sprinklers installed. However, we recognised the need to provide more detailed advice than before. Liaising with ODPM, we therefore produced new draft guidance on fire safety—Building Bulletin (BB) 100, "Designing and Managing Against the Risk of Fire in Schools". It stresses the value of using risk assessments to determine what sort of fire detection and alarm systems should be used in each school, and whether or not sprinklers should be installed. Public consultation on the draft of BB 100 was completed in November last year and an analysis of the responses should be finalised next month. We expect to be able to publish the final version by September this year.
	Concurrently ODPM is carrying out a review of the fire safety aspects of the Building Regulations, Part B, and its accompanying guidance Approved Document B (ADB). Public consultation on draft revised versions of these was also completed in November. An analysis of responses should be finalised around the end of March.

Sprinkler Systems

Nick Gibb: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 
	(1)  what proportion of new schools built in each year since 1996 had sprinkler systems;
	(2)  what estimate she has made of the number of schools fitted with (a) an automatic sprinkler system, (b) a fire detection system linked to the fire service, (c) a monitored intruder alarm and (d) CCTV.

Jacqui Smith: We do not have information on, or estimates of, the numbers of schools fitted with any of these systems, but we have issued advice on their use. Our Managing School Facilities Guide 6, "Fire Safety", includes guidance on the installation of fire detection and alarm systems, and sprinklers (see www.teachernet.gov.uk/fire). More detailed information and advice will be included in our forthcoming fire safety guide for schools, Building Bulletin 100, "Designing and Managing Against the Risk of Fire in Schools." This will stress the value of using risk assessments to determine what sort of systems should be used.
	Guidance on the installation and operation of intruder alarms and CCTV, and on a range of other security measures in schools, are included in our Managing School Facilities Guide 4, "Improving Security in Schools".

Standards Fund

David Gauke: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much from the Standards Fund was (a) spent by local education authorities and (b) devolved to schools in 2004–05; and what the budgeted expenditure from the fund is for (a) 2005–06 and (b) 2006–07.

Jacqui Smith: The following table shows how much was spent by local authorities from grants paid through the Standards Fund in 2004–05, and how much of that amount was devolved to schools.
	
		Standards fund expenditure 2004–05 £ billion
		
			 Standards Fund Total expenditure by local authorities Amount devolved to schools 
		
		
			 Standards Fund Recurrent 2.13 1.60 
			 Standards Fund Capital 2.14 1.37 
			 School Standards Grant 0.86 0.86 
			 Teachers Pay Reform Grant 0.84 0.83 
			 Transitional Support Grant 0.12 0.12 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. Figures for the Standards Fund include government grant and local authority contributions.
	2. Schools and local authorities had until 31 August 2005 to spend their Standards Fund allocation.
	3. Figures for Standards Fund and School Standards Grant are based on information reported by local authorities.
	4. School Standards Grant is paid to local authorities and must be devolved in full to schools.
	5. Schools can carry forward their School Standards Grant into future financial years.
	6. The figure for Teachers Pay Reform Grant is the amount paid to local authorities. Data on the amount devolved to schools was not collected for 2004–05. The figure shown is an estimate based on information from local authorities on the amount devolved to schools in 2005–06.
	7. The figure for Transitional Support Grant is the amount paid to local authorities. The grant must be fully devolved to schools based on plans submitted to the Department by local authorities.
	The following table shows the budgeted amounts for grants paid through the Standards Fund for 2005–06 and 2006–07.
	
		Standards Fund 2005–06 and 2006–07 £ billion
		
			  2005–06 2006–07 
		
		
			 Standards Fund Recurrent* 2.5 2.7 
			 Standards Fund Capital* 3.0 3.5 
			 School Standards Grant 0.9 1.0 
			 Teachers Pay Reform Grant 0.9 n/a 
			 Transitional Support Grant 0.06 n/a 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. Figures for the Standards Fund include government grant and local authority contributions.
	2. All figures are provisional.
	3. Teachers Pay Reform Grant will be transferred into Dedicated Schools Grant from 2006–07.
	4. Transitional Support Grant does not continue beyond 2005–06.
	5. Allocation figures for 2005–06 and 2006–07 are still subject to change.
	6. Final allocation figures for 2006–07 will depend on pupil numbers reported in the January 2006 School Census.

Student Loan Company

Mark Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what restrictions there are on the Student Loan Company that prevent it from sharing information about its borrowers with (a) other lenders and (b) credit reference agencies.

Bill Rammell: holding answer 7 February 2006
	Disclosure of information about individual student loans is governed by the provisions of:
	(a) the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 and relevant credit agreements for loans entered into under the "mortgage-style" loan scheme; and
	(b) the Data Protection Act 1998 for both "mortgage-style" and income contingent loans, and the Higher Education Act 2004 for income contingent loans.
	For certain loans, disclosure may not be made for marketing or for soliciting custom for goods or services. The Government's policy has been not to share data for credit assessment, since student loans themselves are made without such assessments.

Student Participation Rates

Mark Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the participation rate of each age group in (a) higher education and (b) first degree courses in (i) Milton Keynes and (ii) England was in each year since 1997.

Bill Rammell: The current measure of higher education initial participation is the Higher Education Initial Participation Rate (HEIPR), which is used to measure progress towards the Government's aim of having 50 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds in higher education by 2010. This covers English-domiciled 17 to 30-year-old first time entrants to HE courses, at UK HEIs and English FECs, who remain on their course for at least six months. The figure is expressed as a proportion of the 17 to 30-year-old population of England. HEIPR cannot be disaggregated by smaller areas, and it cannot be calculated for earlier years than 1999/2000. The latest figures available for England are shown in the following table.
	
		Higher Education Initial Participation Rate (HEIPR) for English domiciled entrants (full-time and part-time) to higher education courses from 1999/2000 to 2003/04(160)
		
			  All HE courses (percentage) 
		
		
			 1999/2000 41 
			 2000/01 42 
			 2001/02 42 
			 2002/03 43 
			 2003/04 43 
		
	
	(160) Calculations are based on data provided by the Higher Education Statistics Agency and the Learning and Skills Council.
	Source:
	National Statistics Statistical first Release 14/2004, "Participation Rates in Higher Education for Academic Years 1999/2000–2003/2004 (Provisional)".
	The latest available figures on participation by local areas were published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in January in "Young Participation in England", which is available from their website at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2005/05_03/. HEFCE has calculated a Young Participation Rate (YPR (A)), which is the proportion of young people in a given area who go on to enter full-time higher education at age 18 or 19. This measure covers the period 1997–2000. This proportion is disaggregated by parliamentary constituency, and the figures for England and North East Milton Keynes are shown in the following table. Young Participation Rates are not available for first degrees.
	
		Young Participation Rate (YPR (A)) Percentage
		
			 Year cohort aged 18 in: North East Milton Keynes England 
		
		
			 1997/98 27 29 
			 1998/99 27 29 
			 1999/2000 27 29 
			 2000/01 30 30 
		
	
	Source:
	HEFCE "Young Participation in Higher Education".

Student Support

David Gauke: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the (a) costs incurred and (b) savings made as a consequence of the centralisation and electronic processing of applications for student support.

Bill Rammell: The Department published the report of the "End to End Review of Higher Education Student Finance Delivery in England" on 31 January. Its vision of an online student finance service that meets customer expectations is consistent with the Government's aim to transform the delivery of public services. Of the options in the report for carrying out the assessment and payment of student finance, we are attracted to a centrally-provided service for which a single organisation would be responsible, working with others to ensure we meet the needs of individuals requiring local assistance.
	The Department is discussing the report with key stakeholders, including local authority representatives given the potential impact on their staff. I have commissioned a feasibility study into the implementation of its recommendations and options, including an appraisal of the associated costs and benefits. I expect this work to be completed in the spring and will make a further announcement in due course.

University Admissions/Applications

Vincent Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research has been (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated by her Department since 1990 on future trends in university admissions; and if she will make a statement.

Bill Rammell: The Department and its partners undertake regular analysis to forecast future higher education student numbers and have done so for a number of years. For example, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) produced a report on future supply and demand in higher education in 2001 (2001/62) and subsequent publications by the Higher Education Policy Institute (e.g. Bekhradnia, 2005 "Demand for Higher Education to 2015–16", HEPI) have updated on this analysis since.
	Meanwhile, the Department and its partners continue to monitor actual levels of participation drawing on a number of sources (including UCAS data and Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) records) and have for example, also undertaken research to explore better ways of monitoring participation and conducted evaluation of the impact of policies designed to increase aspiration and attainment to secure future HE participation among under-represented groups (see for example DfES research publication references RR676 and RR649). HEFCE's report on "Young Participation in Higher Education" (2005/03) which considers the period 1994–2000 and monitors changes in overall participation rates year on year, is also worthy of highlighting in this context.
	There have of course also been a number of independent reviews which have informed Government policy in this area over the last 15 years. These have variously explored actual patterns and anticipated future demand for HE. Of relevance here for example is the year long National Committee of Inquiry chaired by Sir Ron (now Lord) Bearing which in 1997 published the report "Higher Education in the Learning Society". More recently, Professor Steven Schwartz, ex-Vice Chancellor of Brunei university, led an independent review of admissions practices and published a set of recommendations in 2004 for good practice in fair admissions to higher education.
	From academic year 2006/07, no student will have to pay their fees upfront and they will only have to repay what they owe once they are earning £15,000 or more. Students from poorer backgrounds will be entitled to non-repayable maintenance grants and other forms of support, such as bursaries, are available from individual universities via their access agreements. The Department conducted a review of the international evidence to explore the likely implications of these reforms on future HE participation. This review ("Variable fees—the international evidence", 2004) showed that higher differential fees can be introduced without adversely affecting the participation of students from less well-off families, particularly when backed up by fee deferral arrangements. Nevertheless, we will be conducting a full evaluation of the impact of the new student support arrangements to inform the independent review due to report to Parliament in 2009.

University Funding

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding has been allocated per student to universities in each year since 1997.

Bill Rammell: The unit of funding per full time equivalent higher education student 1 studying at an English institution 2 is shown in the following table.
	1 Planned student numbers used in calculating the unit funding relate to fundable home and EU domiciled students, including both full-time and part-time undergraduates and postgraduates. Figures are based on a snapshot count as at 1 December of the relevant academic year.
	2 Covers both Higher Education Institutions and Further Education Colleges.
	
		Figures in real terms (2004–05 prices)
		
			 Funding per planned student(167)(168) Amount (£) 
		
		
			 1997–98 5,380 
			 1998–99 5,380 
			 1999–00 5,400 
			 2000–01 5,390 
			 2001–02 5,400 
			 2002–03 5,400 
			 2003–04 5,500 
			 2004–05 5,530 
		
	
	(167) Figures rounded to the nearest 10, using September 2005 GDP deflators.
	(168) Funding covers DfES block grant to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and Teacher Training Agency (TTA), and public and private contributions to the cost of tuition. Figures from 1999–2000 do not include earmarked grants for capital. In addition to the funding included, the HE sector also received funding in support of research via the research councils and funds for measures to widen access.